Stoke-on-Trent City Council (19 018 240)

Category : Environment and regulation > Licensing

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 12 Mar 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council issuing a dog boarding license without consulting neighbouring properties, including his own. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains the Council issued a dog boarding license to his neighbours at their residential property without consulting him or other neighbouring properties.
  2. Mr X also complains about delays by the Council and the time it has taken to address his concerns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I have considered Mr X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information he provided. I have written to Mr X with my draft decision and given him an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

  1. The Council issued a dog boarding license to Mr X’s neighbours to start in January 2016.
  2. Mr X complained to the Council in 2018 as it had not consulted him about issuing a dog boarding license to his neighbour.
  3. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs provides guidance for Councils about completing suitable license checks for dog boarding.
  4. A council must complaint checks when considering whether to issue a dog boarding license. These checks are to determine the fitness of both a property and a person to ensure the safety and welfare of dogs to be boarded at the property.
  5. There is no requirement for a Council to consider the impact on a neighbouring property as part of considerations over issuing a dog boarding license.
  6. There is also no requirement for a Council to consult or tell neighbouring properties that someone has applied for a dog boarding license or the Council has granted one.
  7. I have found no fault with the Council for not consulting Mr X when considering provision of a dog boarding license to his neighbour.
  8. I appreciate Mr X has complained about delays by the Council. However, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. My decision is that the Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council issuing a dog boarding license without consulting neighbouring properties, including his own. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings