Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing the complainant with a Fixed Penalty Notice. This is because we are unlikely to achieve anything more to add to the Council’s investigation.

The complaint

1. In short, Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to issue her with a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for not having a dog on a lead. Mrs X complains about the legality of the process and would like to be paid compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We have the power to start an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
3. 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’ that requires consideration of a remedy. 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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Our role is to look at the way councils reach their decisions. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it.
7. A FPN gives someone the chance to pay a fine and avoid prosecution. If the person does not pay the Council may start legal action. The magistrates court then decides if the person committed an offence.
8. Government guidance recommends councils have an internal review process prior to prosecution. The Ombudsman can consider this aspect of the Council’s actions.
9. Mrs X was issued with a FPN for not having a dog on a lead. Mrs X appealed to the Council. She said the signage (to alert the public that a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) was in operation to control dogs) was inadequate.
10. Overall, the Council found the FPN was properly issued. It found Mrs X could have raised her concerns about the signage in the magistrates court.
11. Under the FPN process, Mrs X had the right to defend her case in court. She chose to pay the FPN instead. Once the FPN is paid, the Council closes the case and liability for the offence is discharged.
12. Mrs X continues to dispute the process followed by the Council and says the Council has not addressed her concerns about the signage in full.
13. We do not act as an alternative to the courts. It was not unreasonable to expect Mrs X to have defended her case at court because that is the procedure to defend a prosecution for an unpaid FPN. Instead, she chose to pay the FPN.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not investigate because we are unlikely to achieve anything more to add to the Council’s investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman