The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about changes to the swimming policy in a local leisure centre and the Council’s complaint handling. The injustice to the complainant is not significant enough to warrant an investigation and we will not look at complaint handling as a standalone issue.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about changes to the swimming policy in a local leisure centre. Mr X said the Council failed to communicate the changes to members leading to unnecessary expenditure. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. Mr X said he had to chase the Council numerous times.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
Background
Mr X regularly swims in his local leisure centre. The scheme he previously used allowed Mr X to book swimming session seven days in advance. A change in policy meant Mr X could only book swimming sessions five days in advance. This meant it was sometimes difficult to access a swimming session. Mr X therefore signed up for a membership option costing an extra £100 per year. This meant Mr X could again book sessions seven days in advance.
Mr X is unhappy because he says he then learnt the Council had reverted to a policy which allowed ‘non-members’ to book sessions seven days in advance. This meant Mr X no longer needed to pay the extra membership fee.
Mr X complained to the Council as he was unhappy it had not told him, or other members of the public, the policy had again changed. Mr X says he had to chase the Council many times before he received a final response. Even then, Mr X says the Council did not address the issue at the heart of his complaint.
Mr X has continued to pay the extra fee rather than asking for a refund. This is because it offers extra options which he thinks might be useful in the future.
Assessment We do not have the resources to investigate all the complaints we receive. We only look at the most serious. We consider the fault and injustice to the complainant to decide which cases to investigate.
In this case, I understand Mr X’s frustrations, but we will not start an investigation. It is for the Council to decide what membership options it provides in its leisure centres. It was not therefore fault to change how far in advance non-members could book.
Also, Mr X’s alleged injustice flows from paying for a membership he says he no longer needed. Mr X is not sure when he learnt the Council’s policy had changed back – but it was part way through the membership which costs £100 per year. Once he became aware that non-members could again book seven days in advance, he had the option to cancel his membership. Mr X chose not to, and I understand his reasons for this. But the overall injustice to Mr X is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.
It is frustrating if Mr X had to chase the Council to get responses to his complaints. I also think the Council’s responses could have been clearer. Having looked at the complaint responses, the chronology of changes is not entirely clear. But we will not look at complaint handling as a standalone issue and so we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of significant personal injustice and we will not investigate complaint handling as a standalone issue.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman