Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s proposed changes to its leisure centre. This is because the personal injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s proposed closure of a squash court at its leisure centre and that it interpreted public feedback in a biased way. It caused Mr X frustration. He wants the Council to review its decision.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X regularly attends the Council’s leisure centre and uses the squash court.
6. In 2025, the Council announced to the public that it had proposed to make changes to the leisure centre. This included shutting down the squash court to increase the size of the gym area and add a wellness suite. In making its decision, the Council carried out a public consultation.
7. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s decision. He said the Council had not considered the impact it would have on the community. He said there was a lack of evidence which supported the need for a larger gym and a wellness centre. Mr X also said the results from the public consultation showed that the majority of people did not want the Council to make any changes.
8. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. As part of its response, the Council said:
• the consultation was part of its decision making. The Council had considered the outcome alongside feasibility studies, financial assessments and advice from leisure consultants;
• it recognised the majority of people did not want the Council to make any changes however, it said this was not viable for the future of the leisure centre. It said the changes would allow the leisure centre to sustain long-term;
• it had considered other options which would include keeping the squash court however, they were not appropriate; and
• it would support members of the club to identify alternative provision.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. We recognise Mr X’s frustration and the inconvenience it may cause him in having to find another venue to play squash however, the personal injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the personal injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman