Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s arrangements at a leisure facility. This is because there is no evidence the injustice to Ms X is significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X made a number of complaints about a Council managed leisure facility and these included:
• The age of children accessing changing areas;
• the use of mobile phones and hygiene factors, and;
• how the facility was managed including access times.

2. Ms X said because of these issues, she now feels unable to use the facility.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X complained about the Council’s policy to allow male children under eight years old, into a female changing area. The Council considered her complaint but said it made the decision to continue with the policy as it balances the needs of everyone using the facility.
7. Ms X complained about the use of mobile phones at the poolside and said the poolside was unhygienic because of pushchairs and people wearing outdoor shoes. The Council acknowledged Ms X’s concerns and made some changes to the arrangements here. The Council explained it decided not to change the policy as it balances the needs of everyone using the facility.
8. Ms X complained about the time taken to repair the hoist used to access a swimming pool. The Council did arrange for the repair of the hoist and apologised for the time taken.
9. Ms X complained the Christmas closures of the facility were restrictive and meant people missed opportunities for exercise and well-being. The Council acknowledged her concerns and said it would keep her comments under review for future years.
10. Finally, Ms X said she felt staff were not adequately able to respond to incidents she reported to them. The Council acknowledged her complaint and said it will continue to support staff and will brief them on areas of concern.
11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. Ms X is unhappy with some of the policies of the facility but there is not enough evidence to suggest this is because of failures by the Council. The Council has listened to her concerns and then made its response. Any injustice to her is not significant enough to warrant a full Ombudsman investigation.

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a leisure facility. This is because there is not evidence of injustice to Ms X that is significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman