Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that he was unfairly banned from a leisure facility. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that he was unfairly banned from a Council leisure facility without warning or evidence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

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. The company that manages the leisure facility on behalf of the Council made the decision to ban Mr X from the site after considering information from staff and the police. Mr X appealed the ban, and the appeal was reviewed by a manager and upheld.
7. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. The company that manages the leisure centre implemented the ban and considered Mr X's appeal in line with its policy. In the absence of fault we cannot question the merits of the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman