Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s management of wild birds at a lake in one of its parks. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that due to the Council’s poor management of wild birds at a lake in one of its parks, he feels compelled to collect sick and dead birds when the Council should be doing this. He says it has told him it is following the Animal and Plant Health Agency’s (APHA) advice in relation to Avian Influenza but that it has not provided him with evidence of this advice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. 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)
3. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• 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 organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, 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 the Council, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about its management of wild birds at a lake in one of its parks where, because no action had been taken by the Council, he said he had felt compelled to rescue or retrieve a number of sick and dead birds. He said the Council should be managing the Avian Botulism he believes is active at the site and that it had failed to provide him with a copy of the advice it says it had received from the APHA and which it was following.
7. The Council responded to the various points Mr X raised in his complaint. It told him the Council has an Avian Botulism protocol as well as an Avian Influenza protocol and that based on the risk to human health and advice given by APHA, the Avian Influenza protocol took precedence and was followed because, between the two, Avian Influenza posed the higher risk to human health. It did not uphold his complaint.
8. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal against decisions made by councils with which complainants disagree. While Mr X may not agree with the procedure the Council is following, there is no evidence to suggest fault which warrants an investigation.
9. It is open to Mr X to make an FOI request to the Council if he wishes to obtain information about advice it has received.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman