Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about reduced capacity in her local leisure centre. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, complains about reduced capacity in her local leisure centre. Ms X is unhappy the Council is still charging the full membership fee.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
3. 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
• 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)

4. 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

5. I considered Ms X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she provided. I 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

6. On 09 July 2020, the Government announced that indoor gyms, swimming pools, and sports facilities, which had been forced to close due to COVID-19, could reopen from 25 July. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport published guidance to help venues reopen safely. Measures set out in the guidance included:
• Limiting the number of people using the facility at any one time, for example by using a timed booking system.
• Reducing class sizes and allowing enough time between each class to avoid groups waiting outside during changeover.
• Allowing sufficient break time between classes held in studios to appropriately clean the studio and equipment, and to prevent waiting in groups.
7. Ms X is a member of her local leisure centre which is partly funded by the Council. Ms X pays a monthly fee to attend the leisure centre. In August, Ms X complained the number of exercise classes offered had been reduced, as had the capacity in each class. Despite this, members were still being charged the full monthly membership fee. Ms X said all classes were booked for the next two weeks.
8. Ms X also complained it did not make sense that most classes were held in the evening, rather than spreading them throughout the day. Ms X questioned the decision to only offer the most popular classes, given that many people attended other classes for rehabilitation and therapy. Ms X also raised concerns about the cleanliness of the gym, which she said deteriorated throughout the day.
9. In its responses to Ms X’s complaints the Council said:
• Reopening the leisure facility meant new ways of working to adhere to government guidelines.
• The classes initially offered were the ones the leisure centre could deliver safely, and which members were most likely to attend.
• A further daytime class had been introduced and the plan was to introduce more classes over the next two months.
• It was planning on introducing a charge for members who booked a class and did not then attend. This would increase access to classes.
• Any issues with cleanliness should be reported to staff on the day.
• Members could freeze their membership for two months by which point it expected there would be a fuller programme of activities.
10. I understand Ms X is frustrated by the limited access to her local leisure facility. But based on the evidence available, I do not think an investigation by the Ombudsman would find fault with the Council and the decisions it has taken. This is because:
• Reducing the capacity of exercise classes and the number of classes held is in line with the Government’s guidance.
• The decision to offer the classes most likely to be popular is not one we are likely to criticise.
• It is for the Council to decide when classes in its leisure centre will take place; this is not something the Ombudsman can decide.
• The Council has responded to Ms X’s complaint, explained its current arrangements, and set out its future plans.
• The option to freeze memberships means those unhappy with the current arrangements need not be financially disadvantaged.
• It is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response about cleanliness. As the Council has said, any concerns should be addressed directly to staff as soon as they are discovered.
11. For the reasons set out above the Ombudsman proposes not to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman