Summary: Ms B complains about the outcome of the Council’s assessment of her application for a licence for her dog boarding business and about the way it dealt with her complaint about this matter. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms B, says the Council unfairly marked her down when it decided to rate her dog home boarding business. The review it carried out when she appealed against its decision was procedurally flawed and the original inspection officer was involved in the appeal process.

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 cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms B and the Council. I gave Ms B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered the comments she made.

Back to top

What I found

5. In January 2019, a new licensing regime under The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) Regulations 2018 came into operation. Government guidance sets out the way applications are to be processed and this involves a scoring matrix which must be used to calculate the period of a licence. The guidance also details the minimum and higher standards that must be met when having regard to the scoring matrix.
6. Following on from an inspection undertaken at Ms B’s home in December 2018, the Council awarded Ms B a 2 star licence for 1 year.
7. Unhappy with the Council’s decision, Ms B appealed against it and the Head of Service dealt with her appeal. He looked at the records and spoke to the officer who had carried out the inspection. He explained in some detail the four areas where she had been awarded a lower score but concluded these were justified and had appropriately led to the award of a 2 star licence for 1 year. He advised Ms B that it was open to her to carry out one or more of the suggested improvements and ask for a re-scoring which, if successful, would lead to a 3 star 2 year licence.
8. Unhappy with the outcome of the appeal, and stating that the outcome was unacceptable and that she felt victimised, Ms B made a complaint to the Council who, having already completed the appeal, directed her to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

9. Ms B says she had previously had no problems in obtaining her licence under the old system. However, the Council had to assess her under the new licensing regime and its requirements. In doing so the Council used the government prescribed matrix and the case officer scored her using this.
10. The inspection officer used her professional judgement in assessing Ms B and the decision she made was upheld by the Head of Service. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to act as an appeal body and review the merits of the decision taken by the Council. I have seen no evidence to suggest there was fault in the way the Council dealt with Ms B’s case which caused her injustice and, contrary to Ms B’s views, we would expect the reviewing officer to speak to the inspection officer to ensure he had all the necessary evidence before coming to a view on the appeal. I have seen no evidence to suggest Ms B was a subject of victimisation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman