Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to the sale of horses. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and we cannot obtain the outcomes Ms X seeks.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s failure to act when she told it horses which had belonged to a family member had been illegally sold by the person who had liveried them. She says the Council should have carried out a prosecution because the sale had taken place without the required horse passports, contrary to the law. She wants the Council to undertake a prosecution, return the horses to her and compensate her for financial loss.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council, including its responses to her complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

My assessment

6. While I note initially the Council told Ms X that the sale of horses without the required passports did not fall within the remit of its Trading Standards service, it did subsequently confirm this had been incorrect information and that horse passport and associated legislation was enforced by its service. It apologised for this error but said it had completed its investigation into the recording and documentation of the horses in question and that it would not be taking further action.
7. Such a decision is for the Council to make, and we cannot review the merits of it. Moreover, Ms X’s dispute with the livery yard owner and landlord is a civil matter with which the Council would not be involved. An investigation by the Ombudsman could not lead to the return of the horses or compensation being paid by the landowner for the value of tack not returned to her.
8. In responding to my draft decision, Ms X says she and the family member who owned the horses suffered injustice. However, while her comments are noted, they do not change my view and I do not consider an investigation would achieve any useful outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and we cannot obtain the outcomes Ms X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman