Summary: Mr X complains about an incident in a leisure centre and a letter the Council sent to Mr X warning him about his behaviour. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about an incident in a leisure centre. After the incident, the Council wrote to Mr X and warned him about his behaviour. The Council said if there were further incidents it would ban Mr X for six months. Mr X wants the letter withdrawn and is unhappy with how his complaint has been handled.

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, 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)

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

What happened

5. In December 2020, the Council wrote to Mr X about his behaviour in a local leisure centre. The Council’s letter referred to “unwanted and unacceptable behaviour towards fellow users and staff.” It said examples of this included:
• Not paying attention to the two metre social distancing rules.
• Telling other gym users to “shut up” and “hurry up”.
• Making derogatory comments toward staff.
6. The Council said it recognised the difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. But it said if there were further, similar, incidents, Mr X would be banned from all other council leisure centres for six months.
7. Mr X complained to the Council. He said that he had considered making his own complaint about the “incompetence of your member of staff and her inability to stop talking and…listen”. Mr X said it was the second time the member of staff had been rude, and the Council had only heard one side of the story. Mr X said his public position in the gym had been “sullied” and asked for a meeting.
8. The Council met with Mr X who was given the opportunity to put forward his version of events. The Council considered what Mr X said and in its responses to his complaints said:
• It had clear expectations how visitors and customers should behave.
• Mr X’s behaviour had been directed at customers, as well as staff.
• Mr X had asked for the possibility of a ban to be put to one side. But this was “wholly within your [Mr X’s] accountability and responsibility.”
• Any future issues may lead to an exclusion from the facilities. The content of the warning letter was therefore valid, and the Council would not withdraw it.

Assessment

9. The role of the Ombudsman is to look for administrative fault. We are not an appeal body for people who disagree with a council’s decision. We have no powers to question a council’s decision if there was no fault in the way it was reached.
10. I understand Mr X is unhappy with the letter he received from the Council. But the Council received a report about Mr X’s behaviour while he was using one of its leisure centres. The Council took statements from those present at the time. It decided Mr X’s behaviour was not acceptable. When Mr X said he was unhappy with the letter he had received, the Council met with him and considered what he said. The Council decided not to withdraw the warning letter and it explained its decision to Mr X.
11. Based on the evidence available, there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision to warrant our involvement. Also, I was not there at the time, and so even if we did investigate, it is unlikely we could add anything to the Councils investigation and the responses Mr X has received.
12. Mr X also says he is unhappy with the way his complaint was handled. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at a Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

13. 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