Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council scanning her dog’s microchip without her consent. This is because investigation is unlikely to find sufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains a Council Officer scanned her dog’s microchip without permission during an unannounced visit to a closed pet day care premises. She says the officer did not provide written authority, may have pressured or misinformed the owner, and caused distress to the dog.
2. Mrs X challenges the legal basis for the scan and clarity how the Council will use the data. She also seeks acknowledgment of procedural failure, an explanation for the scan, confirmation the data was removed, and an apology.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 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 the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaints advising its officer conducted a legitimate visit, intended to scan all dogs on site, and scanned her dog as part of that process as it was present. The Council maintains that the officer showed identification, was known to the owner, and obtained the owner’s cooperation before proceeding.
8. While I understand that Mrs X is unhappy that the Council officer scanned her dog’s microchip, the Council has explained its reasons and confirmed what information it can disclose in line with data protection legislation. The Council has also confirmed that it has deleted the dog’s data from its systems. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
9. In addition, we do not investigate all complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints. We do not consider the Council’s actions have caused a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because investigation is unlikely to find sufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman