Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about its management of a recreation facility. Parts of Mr X’s complaint are late and there are no good reasons why they could not have been made sooner. Of the parts that are not late, there is no worthwhile outcome we can achieve by investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X was dissatisfied with the Council’s management of a recreation facility, in particular he said:
• It did not effectively enforce breaches of planning permissions;
• It did not properly consult on how the facility would be used, and;
• It has delayed consultations relating to future use of the facility.
2. Mr X said this has deprived his local community of a recreation facility and he now wants the Council to agree to reopen the facility in its previous format.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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:
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X said he was unhappy with how effectively the Council dealt with breaches of planning applications, during building work at the facility. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about these matters. They relate to Council’s decisions in 2018 and are therefore late. There are no good reasons why Mr X could not have notified these concerns to us sooner.
8. Mr X said the Council was responsible for mismanaging the facility to the point where it was no longer viable as a community facility, including its inaction in appointing a management company to operate it. Mr X was also unhappy at what he said was poor or delayed consultations. He now wants the Council to appoint a management company to run it at no cost to local Council taxpayers and reopen it.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about the Councils actions here. The Council have provided Mr X a response to how it dealt with consultations and intends to in the future. While Mr X may still be unhappy, further investigation about these issues is unlikely to result in a different outcome.
10. In any case, we could not direct the Council to take the action Mr X wants and there is therefore no worthwhile outcome we can achieve by an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, because parts of it are late and there is otherwise no worthwhile outcome we can achieve by investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman