Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the lack of hot water at a Council run leisure centre as the injustice to Mr X is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about a prolonged loss of hot water to wet-side showers at a Council-run leisure centre. He said the Council failed to communicate clearly on site, continued charging full membership fees, and caused inconvenience and additional costs. He alleges a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and faults in complaint handling, and he seeks compensation, an apology and assurances this will not happen again.

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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), 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. Mr X complained about a prolonged loss of hot water to the showers at a leisure centre where he is a member. He said the problem lasted for over three months while the Council continued to charge full membership fees.
7. Mr X said the Council failed to provide clear on‑site information about alternative shower facilities this caused him inconvenience and additional expense. He also said the Council breached his consumer rights.
8. The Council apologised for not having onsite notices in addition to its online notification and said it would improve how it informs users about service disruptions. It explained Mr X could access alternative facilities with hot water either within the centre or at other sites covered by his membership. The Council accepted it did not communicate clearly enough onsite about alternative showering arrangements and apologised. It explained the repairs took longer than expected due to the nature of the works and delays outside its control. It believed there was no breach of the Consumer Rights Act.
9. Where a complainant alleges a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, that is a matter for the courts to decide. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether a council has breached consumer legislation.
10. We will not investigate this complaint as the injustice to Mr X is not significant enough to justify an investigation. Although the Council did not communicate clearly enough on site about alternative shower arrangements, it acknowledged fault and apologised.
11. The Ombudsman cannot investigate every complaint we receive. We must use public funds carefully and while Mr X experienced some inconvenience, this does not amount to a significant personal injustice that would justify our involvement. 

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman