Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s tennis courts. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly manage its tennis courts near his home. The matter caused him frustration. He also said a tennis ball went into his living room. He wants the Council to improve the fencing to prevent balls leaving the courts, review the opening hours and management of the facility and engage with the residents to make changes.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X lives near the Council’s tennis courts. Mr X complained to the Council about the tennis courts and said:
• players are hitting tennis balls over the courts which subsequently enter surrounding residential properties;
• the fence surrounding the courts is lower than previously. Mr X wants the fence to be higher;
• the start and finish times of the courts are too early and too late; and
• he has witnessed players urinate in the courts.
7. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council:
• said it would implement measures to prevent tennis balls entering and striking his property;
• explained it had decided to reduce the height of the fence so that it did not overshadow surrounding residential properties. It said the height of the fence had already exceeded the recommended standard set by the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA);
• advised Mr X to report players urinating in the courts to the Police as it was a criminal offence and so was not in the Council’s jurisdiction to consider such matters;
• said the start and finish times of the courts had been decided by senior leadership and would not consider making any changes; and
• said it had offered to meet with Mr X to discuss his concerns however he had refused to do so.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
9. The Council said it had taken steps to reduce the likelihood of tennis balls leaving the courts which was appropriate. It explained its decision for reducing the height of the surrounding fence. There is insufficient evidence to suggest there was fault in the Council’s decision and so we cannot question the outcome. It appropriately advised Mr X to report matters to the Police. The Council explained the opening hours had been approved by its senior leadership. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the times however, this does not mean there is fault by the Council. Furthermore, the Council offered to meet with Mr X to discuss his concerns which suggests it took reasonable steps to engage with him.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman