Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of lifeguard who gave Mr X advice during a swimming session. Any injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X said he was given advice by a lifeguard during a swimming session, to remain in a particular position. Mr X believed this advice was given based on a flawed consideration by the lifeguard, of his swimming ability. He said this caused him embarrassment.
2. Mr X also complained about the way the Council handled his complaint, and he said the mishandling of his complaint has left him distrustful of authority.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X said he was unhappy about the advice given to him by a lifeguard during a swimming session. Mr X said this disrupted his enjoyment of the session and he left. Mr X then complained to the Council after he was dissatisfied with its earlier responses about why this had happened.
6. We will not investigate this matter. Firstly, I am not satisfied Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice caused by the actions of the lifeguard.
7. 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. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
8. Otherwise, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating. There is an irreconcilable conflict of evidence where Mr X and the lifeguard are likely to have opposing views on Mr X’s swimming ability at that point in time. Additionally, Mr X wants the Council to change how these decisions are challenged, and we could not direct the Council to take this action, therefore we will not investigate.
9. Nor will we investigate the Council’s consideration of Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is not a good use of resources to look at complaint handling concerns, where we are not considering the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman