Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mrs X’s reports of anti-social behaviour. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the actions of the Council. Mrs X has also not suffered significant injustice in relation to parts of the complaint. Another body is better placed to consider Mrs X’s concerns about animal welfare.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says her neighbours are not looking after their cat properly. She says the cat has attacked her and her pet cat which has caused stress, anxiety and large vet bills. Mrs X wants the Council take further enforcement action against her neighbour.

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 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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)

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. Mrs X complained to the Council about her neighbour’s cat causing a nuisance. She said the cat has attacked both her and her cat. Mrs X sent photographs and evidence to the Council.
7. The Council issued a Community Protection Warning (CPW) to Mrs X’s neighbour, which required them to take steps to reduce the nuisance including getting animal behaviour advice. The Council was satisfied the neighbour complied with the requirements of the warning.
8. Mrs X said the cat still enters her garden and attacks her cat. I understand Mrs X wants the Council to take further enforcement action against her neighbour.
9. I have considered the steps the organisation took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding not to take further enforcement action.
10. The Council considered the evidence Mrs X provided about the vet bills and the photographs of injuries to her cat. It considered whether this was a breach of the CPW. It decided the evidence did not show any breach of the CPW. The Council explained to Mrs X why it has not issued a Community Protection Notice to her neighbour. It told Mrs X if she has any recent evidence to show the neighbour’s have breached the CPW, she should send it to the Council. We are unlikely to find fault in how the Council decided not to take further enforcement action against Mrs X’s neighbour. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how it made that decision and I therefore cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
11. The evidence suggests the Council did not handle Mrs X’s complaints in line with the anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced a way to review the handling of complaints of ASB. This is the anti-social behaviour case review, which was previously known as the ‘Community Trigger’.
12. When a person asks for a review, relevant bodies (which may include the council, police and others) should decide whether it meets the local threshold. Relevant local bodies should agree their review threshold, but the ASB statutory guidance says this should be, at a maximum, that a complainant has made three reports of ASB within six months.
13. It is best practice for Council’s to signpost people to the case review process. The Council did not do this. However, I am satisfied the Council took the sufficient steps in dealing with Mrs X’s concerns and therefore no significant injustice has been caused by the Council not signposting Mrs X to a ASB case review.
14. I understand Mrs X believes her neighbour’s cat is unhealthy and is kept outside. Concerns about an animal’s welfare are better placed with the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals).
15. It is open to Mrs X to go to Court to determine liability and costs in relation to the vet bills arising from her pet’s injuries.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council. Mrs X has not suffered significant injustice in relation to the Council’s failure to signpost her to the ASB case review process. Another body is better placed to deal with concerns about animal welfare.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman