The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the parking system at a local leisure centre. This is because there is insufficient personal injustice. We will not investigate his complaint about a Freedom of Information request because it would be reasonable for him to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
The complaint
Mr X complains the new parking system is unfair and penalises customers for minor errors. He says the leisure centre failed to properly communicate its ticket waiver policy. He also complains he did not get a response to his Freedom of Information request.
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 or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained to the Council about the introduction of a new parking scheme at a local leisure centre. He says the parking scheme is unfair as it penalises customers for minor errors. He says the leisure centre failed to properly communicate its ticket waiver policy.
The Council says the leisure centre introduced the scheme to ensure there was enough parking for its members. When it first introduced the scheme, it did use discretion. The Chief Executive of the Leisure Centre Trust offered to meet with Mr X to discuss his feedback.
Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. 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. I do not consider that the Council’s actions have caused Mr X serious personal injustice.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient personal injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman