Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council investigated a complaint about the conduct of a tennis coach who is licensed to use the Council’s tennis courts. We have not seen enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. The complainant also says the Council breached the General Data Protections Regulations. We will not investigate this part of the complaint as the Information Commissioner’s Office is the appropriate body to consider this concern.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Miss X, complains the Council continues to permit a tennis coach, who is guilty of violent and aggressive behaviour towards women, to use its tennis courts.
2. Miss X says she feels threatened and cannot use the park or tennis court. She wants the Council not to allow the coach to use the tennis courts.
3. Miss X also complains the Council breached the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) by revealing details of her complaint at a public meeting.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
 

5. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss X reported a male tennis coach, I shall call Mr Y, to the Council for verbal and physical violent behaviour on a specific date, along with reference to alleged past incidents.
9. In response to Miss X’s complaints, the Council confirmed it gave those present during the incident the opportunity to provide statements. This includes Miss X, Miss X’s tennis partner, Mr Y, and his student.
10. The Council noted Miss X had reported the incident to the police. It understood no action other than a verbal warning was taken against Mr Y.
11. Having considered the information provided, the Council acknowledged that some form of disagreement took place between Miss X and Mr Y. However, as the witness statements contradict each other, it could not come to a definitive conclusion of exactly what happened.
12. The Council also confirmed:
• it received three complaints about Mr Y between 2021 and 2023. In all cases it signposted the complainant to the police where appropriate.
• following Miss X’s complaint to them, the police took no action against Mr Y other than to issue a verbal warning.
• Mr Y remains accredited by the Lawn Tennis Association and is subject to an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check.
• Mr Y’s tennis court access is not considered excessive.
13. In view of the above the Council decided not to take further action against Mr Y. It considers it is reasonable to license an accredited tennis coach to use its facilities.
14. I understand Miss X says the Council based its investigation on statements from Mr Y only and sought no information from anyone else. However, the Council says all those present during the incident were given the opportunity to make statements. I have seen no evidence to suggest the contrary. The Council also confirms the number of complaints it has received about Mr Y in the last two to three years and confirms the complainants were signposted to the police where appropriate. I therefore cannot agree that it ignored previous complaints about Mr Y.
15. Miss X also complains about a breach of GDPR as details of her complaint were announced at a public meeting.
16. The Council says it has reviewed the statements from:
• the Officer who made the alleged GDPR breach
• the supervisor from the organisation that maintains and manages the Council’s parks and sports pitches who was present at the meeting; and
• Miss X.
17. It has also reviewed the notes from the meeting and sought the views of the head of service.
18. The Council says the statements do not align and therefore it cannot make a definitive decision as to whether a data breach occurred.
19. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent body which regulates data protection and deals with complaints about breaches. It is therefore best placed to deal with this part of Miss X’s complaint. Therefore, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council investigated her complaint about Mr Y.
21. The ICO is the body set up by the Government to regulate and oversee data protection. It is therefore appropriate for Miss X to complain to the ICO about the breach of data protection.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman