The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to follow the correct process when it investigated Ms X’s complaint, nor will we investigate the Council’s delay in responding to the complaint. This is because any fault did not cause Ms X a significant injustice.
The complaint
Ms X complained the Council failed to follow the correct process when she raised a complaint about noise levels in her local leisure centre and an instructor’s conduct. She also complained the Council significantly delayed responding to her complaint.
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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8)).
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X complained to the Council about the noise levels in an exercise class she attends at her local leisure centre. She said she has diagnosed hearing loss and the volume is often too high and causes her discomfort. She also made a separate complaint in line with the Council’s harassment and intimidation policy about an instructor’s conduct.
The Council investigated Ms X’s concerns by interviewing the instructor involved and visiting the leisure centre to establish whether the audio equipment and studio layout were in line with requirements. The Council stated it was unable to confirm Ms X’s version of events of what had happened with the instructor, but it had checked the audio equipment and it was not found to be unsafe. The Council offered her mediation, to freeze her membership, confirmed it would remind instructors of the need to make reasonable adjustments and would ensure the volume was lowered to enable her to return to classes.
Ms X was unhappy with the Council’s response because it failed to review CCTV footage and did not obtain her consent to discuss the matter with the instructor, as set out in the policy. She asked to escalate the complaint.
The Council did not respond to Ms X for several months until she raised a further complaint about another incident with the instructor and the Council’s failure to respond to her complaint in line with the correct process and timescales. The Council investigated in line with its corporate complaints policy and did not uphold her complaint. The Council said it considered the relevant information in its initial investigation and had again been unable to confirm Ms X’s version of events with the instructor involved.
Ms X remains unhappy with the Council’s actions. The evidence shows the Council did not properly follow its harassment and intimidation policy as it did not review CCTV footage or obtain Ms X’s consent to discuss the matter with the instructor. However, any fault did not cause Ms X an injustice because the Council provided a proportionate remedy which addressed her complaint and the injustice she experienced in line with what we would expect. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints where the injustice sustained is not sufficient to warrant investigation.
The evidence shows the Council did not respond to Ms X’s request to escalate the complaint for 10 months. Whilst this is not best practice, the Ombudsman will not investigate a Council’s complaint handling where we are not investigating the substantive matters as this is not a good use of public resources.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because any fault did not cause her a significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman