Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s response to an incident in which he says he was threatened by a member of staff at the gym he attends. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the Council took no action against a member of staff who Mr B says threatened him and that it has failed to give him a copy of the staff statements in connection with the events he complained about.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr B and the Council. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B is visually impaired. He is a regular user of a gym run by the Council and during one visit he asked staff to help him move a bench. Mr B says the two members of staff present argued between themselves about the need to move it and who should do it and that when he expressed his dissatisfaction about this he was threatened by one of the staff members.
5. Mr B complained about the incident to the Council which investigated his concerns and addressed his complaint under its complaints procedure. While noting there had been an exchange of words between Mr B and the member of staff, it had found conflicting reports about what had been said and the context it had been said and delivered.
6. It noted Mr B had felt uncomfortable and intimidated and that the member of staff felt Mr B had been unnecessarily aggressive towards him. However, it decided not to take any further action beyond reminding all staff of the importance of good customer service and Mr B about standard gym etiquette.

Assessment

7. While I understand Mr B felt concerned for his safety, and that he had been threatened, the Council properly considered his complaint. Mr B may not be satisfied with the outcome and, even it is the case as Mr B says, that he has heard that one of the staff members involved in the incident supports Mr B’s version of events, an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add sufficiently to the Council’s own investigation or reach a different outcome.
8. If the Council has refused to send Mr B a copy of the staff statements it took, it is open to him to contact the Information Commissioner about this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman