Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Leisure Centre failing to consider the needs of his child, X, who has autism. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council’s Leisure Centre failed to consider the needs of his child, X, who has autism and required support from their therapy dog during a swimming lesson because staff instructed Mr X to remove the dog. Mr X said the matter caused him and his child distress. Mr X also complained the Council poorly managed his complaint. Mr X wants the Council to apologise and to consider making reasonable adjustments to allow his child to have their dog present during swimming lessons. He also wants the Council to make service improvements to prevent a recurrence of faults.

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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X attended the Council’s Leisure Centre with his child, X and their dog. X has autism. On the day of the swimming lesson, X was extremely dysregulated and close to a meltdown. Mr X said he had decided to bring the dog with them to support X. He placed the dog in a buggy and away from the pool.
6. During the swimming lesson, staff approached Mr X and asked him to remove the dog. Mr X explained why the dog was present, however staff still instructed him to remove the dog. Mr X removed the dog and was able to place the dog in the reception area until X finished their swimming class.
7. Following this, Mr X complained to the Council. As part of his complaint, Mr X said:
• staff had treated him and his child unfairly as they failed to consider his child’s needs;
• his child started to show signs of sensory overload following the incident which could have been avoided if staff had allowed the dog to remain with them; and
• the Leisure Centre failed to make reasonable adjustments.
8. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint. As part of its response to Mr X, the Council:
• said in line with its policy, the Leisure Centre does not allow pet dogs by the poolside;
• explained staff normally discuss individual circumstances involving guide or assistance dogs and may ask the customer for supporting evidence such as registration documents or medical evidence. In this case, staff were not sure whether the dog was a guide, assistance or support dog because it had already been brought into the centre without prior discussion;
• informed Mr X it can consider reasonable adjustments however, it must also consider the needs of other customers who may have allergies, fears or aversions to dogs and could be adversely affected by their presence. Therefore, it is required for customers to have a discussion with staff before wanting a dog to assist them on premises; and
• advised Mr X if he wanted to bring the dog again to support his child, to have a discussion with staff before doing so.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council. The Council acted reasonably in asking Mr X to remove the dog from the poolside. Staff had not been informed in advance about the dog or its role in supporting Mr X’s child and therefore did not have sufficient information to determine what reasonable adjustment might be appropriate. They were also entitled to consider the Leisure Centre’s no-dogs policy and the needs and safety of other users.
10. Following Mr X’s complaint, the Council also appropriately acknowledged that reasonable adjustments could be considered to support Mr X’s child. It advised Mr X if he wished to bring the dog to future swimming lessons, he should discuss his child’s needs with staff in advance so that staff could consider what adjustments might reasonably be made. This was an appropriate approach as it provided an opportunity to consider the child’s individual needs whilst also taking account of the needs of other users of the Leisure Centre.
11. As we are not investigating the substantive matter of Mr X’s complaint, we will not consider how the Council managed his complaint. This is because it is not a good use of public money to consider complaint handling as a standalone matter.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman