Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the membership costs and facilities at a council operated leisure centre. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains his local leisure centre does not offer a ‘gym-only’ membership option. Mr X is also unhappy about the layout of the gym.

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
• 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 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

4. Mr X has complained to the Council because it does not offer a gym-only membership for his local leisure centre. He is also unhappy an area he previously used for stretching has been changed. The Council says it is a multi-functional area which can be used for stretching, as well as exercising with free weights. Mr X thinks the area is dangerous and has suggested an alternative arrangement.
5. In its responses to Mr X, the Council explained the discounts it provides, including off-peak memberships and pay as you go options. The Council said it considers its prices to be competitive given the range of facilities it offers. It explained the rationale for the multi-functional area is to maximise its use. A room Mr X suggested for stretching is used for training and so it is not a suitable alternative.
6. I understand Mr X is unhappy with how his local leisure centre operates. But the role of the Ombudsman is to look for administrative fault. It is not our role to tell councils how they should operate their leisure facilities. These are decisions for elected members and council officers. The Council has responded to Mr X’s complaints and provided what I consider proportionate and reasonable responses. While Mr X clearly disagrees with the Council’s position, there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman