Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council carried out an inspection and then took no further action in relation to a licence for a home boarder for dogs. It complied with relevant guidance. Any fault in how the Council then responded to Mr X’s complaints has not caused him an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council should not have provided a licence to a home boarder for dogs because of the condition of the property. Mr X lives nearby and is affected by the noise and disruption caused by the animals.
2. Mr X also complains that the Council has not complied with its own complaints policy when it sent him a stage two complaint response.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint about licensing decisions and how the Council handled his second stage complaint during the complaints process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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 investigate if we decide any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the information Mr X provided.
8. I considered the Council’s comments and the documents it provided.
9. I considered the statutory guidance for local authorities on animal activity licensing and home boarding for dogs.
10. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

11. The guidance (animal activity licensing) says councils can issue a licence for home boarding for dogs once an inspector visits the site and completes a report. In such cases an inspector will grade the site and rate it according to a recognised ‘star rating’. Licences can be valid for one to three years depending on the rating given and can be revoked if the licensing conditions are not being met.
12. The guidance for home boarding sets out further general and specific conditions for licence holders. The inspector assesses both the licence holder and the site alongside these conditions and decides if it meets either the minimum standard (three stars) or the higher standard (four or five stars).
13. According to the animal activity licensing guidance, if a business is given a three-star rating and is low risk, the licence is granted for two years and would need only one inspection in that period.
14. The Council’s complaints procedure has two stages. A second stage complaint will be considered by the director for the relevant department.

What happened

15. In 2016, the Council issued the first home boarder licence to the site Mr X complains about.
16. In 2019, when a renewal application was made, the Council carried out an inspection and granted a new licence. According to the inspection report it decided the rating of the site was three stars. There is no evidence available it decided if the site was a low risk or a high risk.
17. The Council issued a licence for two years, which was suspended during the Covid-19 pandemic, and then re issued in September 2021 with a plan to carry out an inspection in 2022.
18. In February 2022 an inspector from the Council visited the site and spoke to the licence holder. It carried out an inspection and completed a report.
19. The report is a ‘proforma’ and contains the general and specific conditions in line with the guidance. The completed report says the site was compliant with both sets of conditions and has written comments indicating where it gave the licence holder additional advice. The inspectors report recorded the site as a three-star rating.
20. In addition, the report includes a section called ‘risk scoring table’. The report has a record of the inspector’s responses to a series of questions the report raises. The site has been recorded as low risk.

21. In March, Mr X made several complaints to the Council about the business, sent it photographs and said in particular:
• Rats and pigeons were evident since February 2022.
• Dogs were unattended for long periods and were causing a noise nuisance.
• The environment was unhygienic and unsuitable.
22. Later Mr X met with the inspector who gave him advice about the Council’s role in issuing a licence. The inspector explained they were unable to carry out an inspection in January, as no one was there, so had called back in February and completed an inspection.
23. The inspector revisited the site in April following Mr X’s initial concerns. The inspector told Mr X in an email that he had discussed the issues Mr X had raised with the licence holder and reminded them about the conditions of their licence. In the same email, the inspector told Mr X, the reasons the Council decided not to revoke the licence.
24. Following this Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council saying it had not properly considered the decision to issue a licence, including taking the views of residents into account.
25. Mr X escalated his complaint through the Council’s complaints process as both stage one and then stage two complaints.
26. An assistant director who oversaw the regulatory department responded to Mr X’s stage two response. Mr X was unhappy because he said the second stage ought to have been completed by a director, not an assistant director and it should have been investigated by someone not connected to the department being complained about.

My findings

27. Mr X’s complaint in March was the Council should not have issued a licence because of the conditions at that time. The evidence shows the licence had been issued some time previously and the February visit was an inspection to check compliance with the licence conditions. Mr X also complains the Council refused to revoke the licence after its visit.
28. After they visited the site an inspector completed a report. In addition, the inspection report is compliant with the conditions contained in the statutory guidance. The report says the site has a three-star rating to reflect it met the required standard. The risk assessment also indicates the business was low risk.
29. The Council can revoke a licence under certain conditions. The Council was responsive to Mr X’s concerns and decided not to revoke the licence and set out its reasons for this decision.
30. If a council has followed guidance, and there is no other fault in how it made a decision, I cannot question that decision. For this reason, I have found no fault with the Council.
31. The Council’s stage two response was responded to by the assistant director responsible for the department. I have reviewed the response and see no evidence the Council did not properly consider and respond to Mr X’s complaints. Even if there were fault in this response coming from an assistant director rather than a director, this would not have caused Mr X any injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

32. There was no fault in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaints about a nearby licenced home boarder for dogs.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

33. In his letters to the Council, Mr X also raised concerns about a freedom of information request and how the Council responds to noise nuisance. However, these are matters which he raised with the Council after his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman