Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a decision to ban him from a leisure centre. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that he was banned from his local leisure centre. He complains that his appeal against the ban was not properly considered.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The leisure centre wrote to Mr X advising him that he was banned for a period of twelve months. Mr X appealed the ban.
6. The appeal was considered by a manager who reviewed Mr X’s reasons for appealing, viewed CCTV footage and considered statements from staff. The appeal was rejected and the decision was made that the ban would remain in place.
7. I will not investigate this complaint. Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council, and the leisure provider acting on its behalf, acted in line with its policy when implementing the ban and when considering Mr X’s appeal. It has the right to restrict access to facilities where there are good reasons, and it followed the correct process.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman