Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation into matters concerning the licencing of dog kennels used by the complainants. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainants, who I refer to as Mr and Mrs X, complain about the Council’s handling of matters concerning the licencing of dog kennels where they boarded their dog and the Council’s investigation into events which took place involving their boarded dog.

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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainants and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave the complainants the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what they said.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr and Mrs X boarded their dog at Dog Kennels A and complained to the Council about events which took place at the kennels involving their dog. They said the Council had been wrong to grant a licence to Dog Kennels A to provide a dog boarding service and that following the events which took place involving their dog, its licence should have been cancelled.
8. The Council responded to the concerns raised by Mr and Mrs X but concluded that officers had thoroughly investigated their complaints about Dog Kennels A and that the correct processes had been followed.
9. We do not investigate every complaint we receive and while Mr and Mrs X have understandably been distressed by the events which took place, I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman would usefully add to that already carried out by the Council.
10. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal and review the merits of decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information and an investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a recommendation that the licence for Dog Kennels A be withdrawn.
11. There was some fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mr and Mrs X’s data protection complaint and in the handling of their original complaint. However, we normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection and we will not investigate complaint handling matters when we are not investigating the substantive issue.
12. In responding to my draft decision, the complainants say the Council’s investigation was biased, only undertaken to protect the Council and that staff have a close relationship with the kennels. However, there is no evidence to support these allegations.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman