Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to offer a refund or further compensation following the closure of the swimming pool at a leisure centre. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. We also cannot add to the Council’s consideration of the complaint or the responses already provided.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council failed to provide a proportionate remedy following a prolonged closure of the swimming pool at a leisure centre. He says the Council relied on inaccurate usage data, wrongly said he could have frozen his membership, and did not accept that staff advised him he could continue using other facilities and still qualify for a refund. He says this caused him distress and frustration.

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 and we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (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 Council has a published policy for considering refunds or compensation where leisure facilities are unavailable. It explains that compensation is considered where members are unable to use facilities, and that where members continue to use other elements of their membership, refunds are not normally offered. Councils are entitled to set and apply such policies, provided they do so properly.
7. The Council explained that during the pool closure, Mr X continued to use other leisure facilities available under his membership. It relied on recorded usage data when reaching this view. While Mr X disagreed with the Council’s interpretation of that data, I have not seen objective evidence to show the Council’s records were inaccurate or that it was unreasonable for the Council to rely on them.
8. Mr X also says staff advised him he could continue using other facilities and still qualify for a refund, and that he was told his annual membership could not be frozen. The Council did not agree and said such advice would not have been given. There is no contemporaneous documentary evidence confirming the advice Mr X says he received. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there appears to be no additional evidence we could examine to reach a different view or add to the investigation already carried out by the Council.
9. The Council considered the circumstances and decided Mr X did not meet the criteria for a refund under its policy. It instead offered a two-month membership extension as a goodwill gesture and apologised for the inconvenience caused by the pool closure. Where a council follows its policy and considers the relevant information, we cannot question the merits of the decision simply because the complainant disagrees with it.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement. We also cannot add to the consideration of the complaint or the responses already provided by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman