Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision to mostly close a public toilet block, or its explanation for why the disabled cubicle was unavailable on a particular day. We have therefore completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant, who has passed away, as Ms C. Ms C is represented in her complaint by her son, Mr D.
2. Mr D complains that, during a visit to the beachfront, Ms C was unable to access a disabled toilet cubicle because it was closed. She therefore had to queue for a general cubicle instead, and vomited in public as a result. Mr D says Ms C was very distressed by this and never returned to the beachfront before she died.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and s34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. In May 2025 Mr D submitted a stage 1 complaint to the Council. He said, in March, Ms C had been visiting the beachfront when she felt the need to use the toilet. Because the disabled toilet on a nearby block was closed, Ms C – who was terminally ill – was forced to queue for a general cubicle instead. As a result of this, Ms C vomited in public, which caused her distress.
7. Mr D said council contractors on site had informed him the disabled toilet was locked because of “seasonality, budget constraints, and fears over vandalism and “local crackheads””. He said the closure was not properly signposted, and the contractors had wrongly told him the toilet would re-open on 1 April, which he later established was untrue.
8. Mr D said he had called the Council later the same day and was informed the disabled toilet would normally be open, but had been closed due to misuse on that particular day.
9. Mr D complained the Council’s policy was discriminatory, because it increased the possibility the disabled toilet would need to be closed through misuse, and was more likely to cause queues. He said the officer he spoke to had promised to email him after investigating the possibility of a change in policy, but had not done so.
10. Mr D accused the Council of breaching its duties under the Equality Act 2010. He asked the Council to give him a detailed explanation of how it intended to change its policy, and also to apologise and to offer a financial remedy.
11. The Council replied in June. It said the local tourism website explains the toilets are closed during the winter season, although it acknowledged this was not clearly signposted at the site. However, the Council said a local business had provided funding to keep one cubicle open during the winter in this particular toilet block; and, for accessibility purposes, the Council had decided this should be disabled toilet.
12. On the day of Ms C’s visit, the disabled toilet was closed due to misuse. The Council said it had opened one of the general cubicles as an alternative, but acknowledged this did not provide disabled access. It explained it had decided in 2015 to close certain public toilets on a seasonal basis, and noted the relevant legislation, the Public Health Act 1936, did not impose a statutory duty on local authorities to provide public toilets.
13. The Council agreed its contractors’ language was insensitive, and that they provided incorrect information. It said it had raised this point with their management. The Council said it had reviewed its policy, but had decided not to make any changes to it. It explained the officer to whom Mr D had spoken had misplaced his email address after the call and was therefore unable to write to him, as he had promised, for which it apologised. However, the Council did not agree it had breached any of its legal duties.
14. The Council partially upheld the complaint, and said it was improving its system for recording contact. It also said it would consider improving the signage on its public toilets, to ensure opening times were clear.
15. Mr D later submitted a stage 2 complaint, but the Council responded in July to say it could not add to its original response. Mr D then submitted a complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

16. The Ombudsman’s role is to review the way a council has made its decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or unduly delayed making a decision. We call this ‘fault’ and, where we find it, we can consider the impact of the fault and ask the council in question to address this.
17. However, we do not make operational or policy decisions on a council’s behalf, or provide a right of appeal against its decisions. If we find a council has acted without fault, then we cannot criticise it, even if the complainant feels strongly it has made the wrong decision. We do not uphold a complaint simply because a person disagrees with something a council has done.
18. The Council has explained it made a formal decision in 2015 to operate some of its public toilets on a seasonal basis. As it has noted, the law does not place any statutory duty on local authorities to provide public toilets, and so the Council was entitled to make this decision. This is not fault.
19. At the toilet block in question, one toilet remained open due to funding the Council had received. Under normal circumstances, this would have been the disabled toilet, but due to misuse the Council had closed it and opened a general cubicle instead.
20. It is very unfortunate this incident coincided with Ms C’s visit to the beachfront. However, there is nothing about this I could reasonably criticise the Council for. It had kept a toilet open, despite there being no requirement in law or its own policy; and in order to meet its equality duties, the Council had decided this toilet should be the disabled one. It was not the Council’s fault the disabled toilet had been misused, meaning it needed to close it.
21. In fact this question appears somewhat academic anyway. Even if the disabled toilet had been available, it appears likely the same queue would have formed, and that Ms C would still have been forced to wait. The critical factor was not which toilet was open, but the fact only one was open; but, as I have noted, this was a decision the Council was entitled to make.
22. Mr D says the Council’s decision is a breach of its duty under the Equality Act 2010. However, this is not a decision we can make, which instead a matter for the courts. Our role is simply to determine whether there has been administrative fault in the Council’s actions. I am satisfied that is not the case: the Council has given a clear and rational explanation for why it closes toilets generally, why it keeps one open in this particular location, and why (on the day in question) the disabled toilet was closed.
23. This being so, I have no grounds to uphold Ms C’s complaint, or to make any recommendations the Council change its policy or pay Mr D a financial remedy.
24. I note the Council has made some criticisms of itself, in that its contractors used insensitive language and gave Mr D incorrect information about the dates the toilets would fully open, that there was inadequate signage on the block to explain its opening dates, and that an officer did not email Mr D when he said he would.
25. However, the Council apologised for its failure to contact Mr D, says it has brought up the contractors’ performance with the relevant manager, and improved the signage on the block (for which it has provided us with evidence). As these are minor points for which the Council has already taken appropriate remedial steps, I do not consider they justify a finding of fault.

Back to top

Decision

26. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman