Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse the complainant an animal license. We cannot investigate this matter as the complainant has appealed to the tribunal. Further, there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to require the complainant to apply for the license.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to reject his animal licensing application. Mr X also complains that the Council required him to apply for the license prematurely Mr X says the Council should retract its rejection or put it on hold until the outcome of his planning application is known.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X including his comments in response to my draft decision. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X submitted an animal licensing application which was rejected by the Council. Mr X would like the Council to retract its rejection or put it on hold until the outcome of his planning application is known. Mr X appealed the Council’s decision, and the matter was considered by the First-Tier Tribunal. We cannot investigate any matters concerning the outcome of the licensing application. This is because Mr X used his right of appeal to the tribunal, and we therefore do not have the jurisdiction to investigate.
6. Mr X complained that the Council requested he apply for a license prematurely. Mr X says he should not have been made to submit an application until any issues concerning planning had been addressed first.
7. The Council advised Mr X that a licensing application was required under the Animal Licensing Regulations. The regulations state that a licensing application must be made if both or one of the following conditions occur:
• breeding three or more litters of puppies in any 12-month period;
• breeding dogs and advertising a business of selling dogs.
8. The Council advised Mr X that as his business met both of these independent requirements, he was legally required under the regulations to apply for a license. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to require Mr X to apply for a license as he was legally required to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X has used his right of appeal to the tribunal and there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to require Mr X to apply for an animal license.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman