The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to charge people to use its tennis courts. Mr X does not live in the area and has not been caused a significant injustice by the Council’s actions. There is also not enough evidence of fault in how the Council consulted on the proposals to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to charge people to use tennis courts which the Council had previously provided for free. He said this decision would disadvantage low-income households and other groups.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
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 by an organisation. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider community campaign about something of general concern but where they have not suffered injustice.
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to charge to use the tennis courts. Mr X does not live in the Council’s area, therefore its decision to introduce charges has not caused him a significant injustice.
In addition, we cannot question whether the Council’s decision is right or wrong, where there is no evidence of fault in how it was made. The Council consulted on the proposed changes to the tennis courts. It considered the views of respondents. The Council recognised that most people did not want it to introduce the changes to the tennis provision, however, it said there was no other feasible way to secure their long-term future of the courts. In its complaint response, the Council confirmed it completed an Equality Impact assessment as part of its proposals. It said it would keep costs affordable and provide concessionary membership prices. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council acted to justify our involvement.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has not been caused a significant injustice, and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman