Investigation of complaint
11. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.
12. Mr R complains on behalf of Miss R that the AALA and HSE failed to properly investigate and take action against an outdoor activities centre following Miss R sustaining sunburn whilst on a residential visit. Mr R says the incident left Miss R physically harmed and both him and Miss R emotionally stressed, Mr R is also concerned the actions of the HSE may lead to a fatality as it highlights a lack of suitable risk assessments and procedures at the centre.
13. The Activity Centres (Young Persons’ Safety) Act nominates the HSE as the body responsible for licensing of persons providing facilities for adventure activities and allows it to designate a person/licensing authority to carry out these functions. The Act also states the ‘Regulations may make provision as to the investigation by the licensing authority of complaints concerning licence-holders’.
14. Mr R initially complained about the actions of the outdoor activities centre to the AALA. Following its response he complained to the HSE. In this he complained the AALA’s consideration of his complaint was ‘not sufficiently thorough or balanced and that it was not grounded in reality’. The HSE initially replied to Mr R in August 2025. In its reply it confirmed it had considered all of the information provided to it by Mr R and the actions carried out by the AALA and it was satisfied that the ‘AALA investigated the matter of the complaint thoroughly, in a timely manner and in line with the law’ and that the ‘HSE believes that AALA’s decision not to take action against the company was an appropriate conclusion, based on the available evidence’.
15. Mr R then complained further to the HSE and received a response at tier 2 of its complaints process. In its response the HSE again confirmed the actions it had taken in reviewing Mr R’s complaint and that it was satisfied with the extent to which the AALA had investigated Mr R’s concerns. It also confirmed the injuries received by Miss R were not reportable to the enforcing authority and it would have been the responsibility of the school to inform parents of any concerns as the children on the residential trip were under their duty of care. Therefore the AALA were correct to conclude the responsibility for reporting of any injuries incurred on the trip were not the responsibility of the activity centre or its staff.
16. In its tier 3 response the HSE confirmed it was satisfied with the investigations and actions taken as part of its tier 1 and 2 investigations and did not therefore uphold Mr R’s complaint.
17. The Adventure Activities Licensing Regulations states: Complaints The licensing authority shall consider any complaints which it receives relating to the provision of facilities for adventure activities by licence-holders and shall, if it considers it necessary, cause those complaints to be investigated.
Following the investigation of a complaint the authority shall take such action as it considers appropriate and, in particular, it may— (a)revoke or vary the relevant licence in accordance with regulation 10; (b)refer the matter to the relevant enforcing authority.
Where a complaint has been investigated by the authority the authority shall advise the complainant of the result of that investigation and of any action taken by it in consequence.
18. We acknowledge Mr R does not consider the HSE carried out an adequate and robust investigation into the events that resulted in Miss R sustaining sunburn whilst attending a school trip and Mr R having to treat her for suspected heatstroke on returning from the trip. We recognise Mr R’s concerns this indicates a more widespread issue with procedures and risk assessments at the centre and believes the HSE should take action to close the centre before a fatality occurs.
19. It is not the role of the HSE or purpose of the legislation to take action on speculative grounds as to what may or may not happen in the future based on tentative links to previous events. We have seen from the responses of the HSE to Mr R’s complaint that it explained the extent and remit of the AALA to carry out investigations, as well as why the injuries Miss R sustained did not meet the threshold to be reportable to the HSE and investigated under the Reporting of Industrial Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR). The HSE also detailed in its responses the actions it had taken to investigate the matters, the people and organisations it had spoken to and the documentation it had considered. Therefore taking into account all of the information it is our view the HSE followed the Adventure Activities Licensing Regulations when considering Mr R’s complaint by carrying out an investigation as it considered necessary, taking such action as it considers appropriate and informing Mr R of the result. Therefore we will be taking no further action on this complaint.