Summary: We will not investigate this complaint alleging failures in the Council’s investigation into her reports of breaches of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Home Boarding for Dogs Licensing Guidelines. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to follow the correct procedure when it received her complaint about a dog boarding kennel.

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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X’s dog sadly died following an accident while in the care of a dog board facility. She complained to the Council that the facility had breached the Animal Welfare Regulations 2018 and the Home Board for Dogs Licensing Guidelines. In particular, she says:
• the facility did not have two secure barriers between where her dog was located and the exit
• the owner had no protocol in place for such a serious event
• the owner did not report the accident to the police when it happened; and
• the owner delayed in taking her dog to the vet.
6. The Council advised Miss X of its findings.
7. Mrs X disagreed with the outcome of the Council’s investigation, saying it had failed to follow the legislation.
8. In its response to her complaint the Council confirmed it had considered all options available under the potential offences according to the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It confirms its investigation revealed the licence holder had two barriers in place at the time of the incident. One had failed, and this contributed to Miss X’s dog escaping onto the road where sadly a car hit her.
9. However, the Officer attending the site witnessed increased measures put in place by the licence holder which exceed the requirements of the relevant regulations. Therefore, they did not consider it necessary to revoke the licence.
10. The Council says the Officer did identify several administrative failures. Because of this the licence has been downgraded from a four-star, two-year licence; to a one-star, one-year licence,
11. The information I have seen shows the Council inspected the facility and interviewed the relevant people under caution. Enhanced measures were put in place and the Council was given a police reference number. The Council says it validated the number with the police.
12. We will not investigate this complaint. I understand this matter has been very distressing for Miss X and send my condolences on the loss of her family pet. However, I have seen no evidence of fault in the Council’s investigation. Its decision not to revoke the facility’s licence is therefore one the Council is entitled to make.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X ’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council investigated her complaint and decided to downgrade but not revoke the facilities licence.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman