Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about changes to public toilets. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to introduce charges for using public toilets – including disabled toilets. He is also unhappy the Council has decided to close some of its toilet facilities.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X is unhappy the Council has made changes to the way its public toilets operate. The changes included charges for all public toilets and the closure of some facilities. Mr X’s wife is disabled, and he says the changes make it difficult for them to go out. Mr X says the Council has withdrawn access to toilets via the RADAR (Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation) key scheme.
6. The Council has responded to complaints from Mr X. It has explained there is no legal duty to provide public toilets and the Council needs to save money. Councillors considered several options and decided to introduce the charges following a consultation exercise. They also agreed to close some toilets and for others to be transferred into community ownership and control. The Council has explained to Mr X it does not have any RADAR toilets in its facilities, nor is it required to do so.
7. I understand Mr X is frustrated by the changes made by the Council. But it is not the role of the Ombudsman to say how councils should spend their limited funds. We have no powers to criticise a council’s decision if it has been properly made.
8. The Council carried out a consultation exercise into its proposals. Papers on the Council’s website show councillors considered various options. The Council completed an equality impact assessment into its proposals. The decision to approve the changes is one councillors were entitled to take.
9. Based on the evidence I have seen, there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman. Even if this were not the case, it is unlikely the charge to use public toilets would represent enough injustice for the Ombudsman to become involved.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman