Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council serving a community protection order for causing fear and injury in the community. Miss X says the Council failed to consider her mental health vulnerability and that she was not given assistance in how to appeal the notice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council issuing her with a community protection notice for failing to keep her dogs under control in the community. She says the evidence used by the Police and the Council was not sufficient and that the notice should be lifted.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to a court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X says she was served with a new community protection notice in 2025 following an earlier order issued against her. This order included another of her dogs which was not referred to on the previous order. She disputes the new order and says the evidence provided by the Police and the Council’s own officers did not clearly indicate why her other dog was added.
7. The Council told Miss X that there was sufficient witness evidence that all of her dogs were responsible for causing fear and injury in the community and that a further order was warranted to keep other pets and the public safe.
8. The order gave advice about how to appeal against it within 21 days to the magistrates court. Miss X sought legal advice but was deterred from appealing because she says she could not establish from the Council if she would be liable for costs if the appeal failed. She says the Council should have given her more help to appeal the notice. The Council says the notice was valid and it would be a conflict of interest to advise her how to appeal it.
9. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
10. It was reasonable for Miss X to use her rights of appeal if she wished to challenge the notice.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council serving a community protection order for causing fear and injury in the community. Miss X says the Council failed to consider her mental health vulnerability and that she was not given assistance in how to appeal the notice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman