Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a complaint about dog barking because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault or injustice sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s inadequate investigation of a complaint it received of dog barking coming from his property when he does not own a dog. He wants the Council to visit and confirm to him and the person who complained that he does not own a dog.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I spoke to Mr X and considered information he and the Council provided.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Despite not owning a dog, the Council received a complaint from a third party about dog barking coming from Mr X’s property. The Council sent Mr X a letter telling him about the complaint it had received.
6. When the Council received no response to its request for further information from the person who had complained, it closed the case. The Council told Mr X of this and confirmed no evidence had been received to substantiate the allegation.
7. While I understand Mr X was distressed to have received a letter from the Council about an allegation of dog barking when he does not own a dog, the Council followed its usual procedures in writing to both Mr X and the person who had made the complaint. It has explained to Mr X why it closed the case without taking any further action and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council. Mr X has the email trail with the Council in which confirms its position and there is no injustice caused to Mr X which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault or injustice sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman