The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council’s management of public toilets. This is because the alleged fault has not caused Mr C a serious or significant injustice which would justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.
The complaint
Mr C complains the Council is failing to maintain and manage public toilets which he has reported. Mr C also says the Council has not provided details of repairs undertaken, has delayed responding to his contacts, has not followed its complaints procedure and has not fully addressed his complaint. Mr C says his visits to this area have been limited due to uncertainty about the availability of public toilets. Mr C also says he has been frustrated by the Council’s handling of this matter.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 an investigation if we decide: any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are not dealing with the substantive issue.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr C.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint. This is because the alleged fault by the Council has not caused Mr C to suffer a serious or significant injustice which would justify public money being spent on an investigation by the Ombudsman.
The Council has explained that its public toilet door locks are regularly vandalised and it tries to repair or replace the locks as quickly as possible.
Mr C does not live locally. Mr C is aware there could be issues with some of the public toilets in this area and can plan his visits accordingly. An investigation by the Ombudsman is not justified.
Because we are not investigating the substantive matter complained about, an investigation solely into the Council’s handling of Mr C’s complaint would not be a good use of our resources and is not justified.
Also, Mr C may use the Freedom of Information Act to request information from the Council about the Council’s management of these public toilets. If Mr C is not satisfied with the Council’s response, he may complain to the Information Commissioner, who is in the best position to decide the matter.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because he has not suffered a serious or significant injustice which would justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman