The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems linked to broken lift in a leisure centre. This is because it is unlikely we could add anything to the response the Council has already provided or achieve a different outcome.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained the lift at his local leisure centre had been out of order for over six months. Mr X said this made it difficult for his partner and other people with mobility issues to access the upper floors. Mr X also complained about a lack of contingency plans, poor signage, a failure to relocate services, and disorganised staff who do not understand their role. Mr X wants the Council to be more proactive and to install a stairlift.
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: we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
In its responses to Mr X’s complaints the Council said: It was sorry about the problems the broken lift had caused Mr X and his partner. A lack of parts had led to delays.
Notices about the lift being out of order were now displayed in reception and on each floor. They were checked daily.
The leisure centre had been designed with only one lift and the current evacuation chair had to be kept on the upper floors. An extra chair had been ordered but was not suitable. The leisure centre was looking to source an alternative and was doing all it could to ensure the lift was repaired.
Staff are available to help customers if they need assistance.
Gym equipment from upstairs cannot be moved to the ground floor due to lack of space.
The Council does not consider the leisure centre to be disorganised and its staff do understand their roles.
A recent accessibility audit had been carried out looking at the whole leisure centre.
It was sorry for any distress caused but the leisure centre does consider the needs of disabled people. It had taken appropriate action to rectify the issues raised by Mr X.
I recognise Mr X’s frustrations, but we will not start an investigation into his complaint.
The amount of time the lift has been out of action is clearly inconvenient and problematic for many users. But it is unlikely that if we investigated Mr X’s complaint we would say the problem with the lift was due to avoidable fault by the Council.
In its responses to Mr X’s complaints the Council has provided what I consider to be proportionate and reasonable responses. It has set out the steps it has taken and listened to some of Mr X’s suggestions. It has explained why it is not possible to do things such as moving the leisure equipment downstairs.
It is therefore unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response or achieve a more positive outcome for Mr X. An investigation is not therefore appropriate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because is unlikely we could add anything to the response the Council has already provided or achieve a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman