Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the conduct of a member of the Council’s staff. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice, and it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, complains about the conduct of an ‘Exercise Referral Specialist’ from the Council’s ‘Get Active Programme’. Ms X says she had a ‘bet’ with the member of staff which has not been paid. Ms X also complains about the ‘tone’ of text messages sent by the member of staff. Ms X wants the bet paying and an apology.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered Ms X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she provided. I also gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on her complaint.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms X enrolled on the Council’s Get Active Programme. Ms X has complained to the Council about a bet she says she had with the programme’s Exercise Referral Specialist. Ms X says she won the bet but has not been paid. Ms X also complained to the Council about text messages the Exercise Referral Specialist sent her.
5. In its response to Ms X’s complaint, the Council said it had reminded staff not to use any “language or turn of phrase which may be misunderstood or misconstrued as a gambling bet.” The Council said it had spoken to the member of staff “who did not intend to cause you any distress and did aplogise to you if she had casued any.” The Council noted Ms X had continued to attend the Get Active Cycling Programme.
6. Based on the evidence available the Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because:
• We could never establish exactly what was said between Ms X and the Exercise Referral Specialist.
• The Council has provided what I consider to be proportionate and reasonable responses to Ms X’s complaints. It has spoken to the member of staff, provided revised guidance, and the Exercise Referral Specialist has offered an apology.
• While Ms X is clearly unhappy her bet has not been paid, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council which has caused Ms X injustice to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
7. For the reasons set out above an investigation by the Ombudsman is not appropriate.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice, and it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman