Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded when Mr Z reported a person selling animals. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, and any personal injustice to Mr Z is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr Z complained the Council did not properly consider his concerns about a person selling animals.
2. Mr Z said the Council had ignored its licensing and animal welfare responsibilities, causing him professional and personal distress.
3. Mr Z wants the Council to investigate immediately, provide suitable training for staff, and apologise.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr Z.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Z contacted the Council to raise concerns about a person selling animals within its boundaries.
8. The Council told Mr Z it had considered the information he provided and decided the issue was low risk under its enforcement priorities. It said the matter did not meet the threshold for immediate enforcement action.
9. The Council also said it focuses its resources for matters deemed high risk under its enforcement priorities. The Council’s enforcement priorities are publicly available on its website.
10. The statutory guidance for the Regulator’s Code states regulators should take an evidence-based approach to identifying the priority risks in their areas of responsibility and allocate resources where they would be most effective in addressing those priority risks. The Council is entitled to decide what matters are high risk in its area.
11. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Mr Z disagrees with the decision the Council made.
12. We will not investigate Mr Z’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision, when considered against its enforcement priorities and the Regulator’s Code.
13. We consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. There is insufficient evidence of a significant personal injustice to Mr Z.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr Z’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating, and any personal injustice to Mr Z is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman