Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in determining an application for a licence under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mrs X could not have complained to us sooner. We will not investigate the Council’s decision to refuse the application. It was reasonable for Mrs X to appeal the decision to the magistrates court.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council delaying her application for a dangerous wild animals licence which she submitted in 2022. She says it was not determined until January 2024 and the decision was to refuse it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X applied for a licence to keep wild animals in an enclosure on her property in January 2022. The Council was required under the procedure to carry out an inspection and have a report compiled by a vet on the suitability of the premises. The Council inspection took place in March and the vet report was critical in a number of areas relating to the proposed use and provisions for keeping animals.
7. Mrs X had no communication with the Council from September 2022 to June 2023. After this there were exchanges of correspondence and the Council agreed to carry out a further inspection. The Council gave Mrs X 20 days’ notice for a further inspection in November but access was not available and she said that the notice period was too short.
8. In January 2024 the application was refused by the Council. The refusal carries a 21-day period for submitting an appeal to the magistrates court. Mrs X did not pursue an appeal.
9. Finding
10. We will not exercise discretion to consider the delay which Mrs X reports from 2022. Once the inspection had taken place it was reasonable for her to complain to us within 12 months of the procedure. She did not do to until May 2024. The time for receiving complaints is from when someone became aware of the matter they wish to complain about, not when they complained to the Council or it issued its final response. We would expect someone to complain to us within a year, even if they were dissatisfied with the time the complaints procedure was taking.
11. It was reasonable for Mrs X to challenge the refusal by appealing to the magistrates court because she had made previous applications and was familiar with the process.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in determining an application for a licence under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. This complaint was received outside the normal 12-month period for investigating complaints. There is no evidence to suggest that Mrs X could not have complained to us sooner. We will not investigate the Council’s decision to refuse the application. It was reasonable for Mrs X to appeal the decision to the magistrates court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman