Summary: Mrs X complains a Council officer abused his position when he reported her dog for attacking his dog. She also says the Council breached the General Data Protection Regulations. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X is seeking. And the Information Commissioner’s Officer is the appropriate body to investigate data protection breaches

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the way the council has dealt with a report that her dog is dangerous. She says it has made accusations that her dog is dangerous without investigating the matter. She also believes that complainant tracked her down using the council systems, breaching the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).
2. She wants the Council to withdraw its warning letter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mrs X which includes the Council’s responses to her complaint. She commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislative background

5. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 amends the Dangerous Dogs Act. It requires dog owners to keep dogs under control in private property as well as public spaces. It gives local authorities powers to demand owners take action to prevent a dog attack or risk fine of up to £2,500 for individuals or £20,000 for an organization.
6. If a council receives a complaint about a dog it can issue a community protection notice (CPN). CPNs provide a statutory tool that can be used in cases of irresponsible dog ownership where informal non-statutory methods have proved unsuccessful. They can require a dog’s owners to do any of, or all of the following to improve the dog’s behaviour and the dog owner’s control of it:
• attend dog training classes
• muzzle the dog or require it to be on a lead in public
• require the dog to be micro-chipped and/or neutered
• repair fencing to prevent the dog leaving the property

The Complaint

7. Mrs X received a letter from the Council advising it had received a complaint that her dog had attacked another dog while she was out walking it. It suggests she should ensure her dog wears a muzzle when it is out. And that it has sent a copy of the letter to the safer neighbourhood team based at a local police station. And that complains the Council issues a warning letter advising her to muzzle her dog in public. It also says that a further incident would mean her dog’s behaviour will be monitored by the animal control office and safer neighbourhood team. Or it may apply for a dog control order.
8. Mrs X complained to the Council saying the incident did not happen as described. She says;
• her dog did not attack the other dog, the animals simply growled at each other
• the description of her dog is wrong
• the location of the incident is wrong
• the other dog owner works for the Council and got her name and address without consent breaching the GDPR.

The Council told Mrs X the other dog owner does work for the Council. But they are entitled to make a complaint. It also says the other person provided some details of where she lived and the officer who sent the letter had been able to identify her using the information together with the electoral register. And, as the electoral register is a public document, it had not breached any data protection regulations. It also confirmed Mrs X could make a complaint about the other dog if she wants to.

9. The Council also says the letter sent to Mrs X is a low-level warning which outlines what action can be taken if the behaviour continues. It also suggests measures the owner take to avoid further action if the behaviour persists. A copy of the letter is sent to the Police Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNT) for information. Should a further incident be reported to either agency then, depending on the circumstances of the incident, further action may be taken.

Assessment

10. The letter sent to Mrs X is a standard warning letter the Council uses when it receives a complaint about dog behaviour. Also, though it suggests Mrs X muzzles her dog in public, she is not obliged to do so. And, should not other incidents be reported, then no further action will be taken.
11. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. It deals with complaints about public authorities’ failures to comply with data protection legislation. This includes wrongly disclosing personal information.
12. There is no charge for making a complaint to the ICO, and its complaints procedure is relatively easy to use. Where someone has a complaint about data protection, the Ombudsman usually expects them to bring the matter to the attention of the ICO. This is because the ICO is in a better position than the Ombudsman to consider such complaints. It has much wider powers than the Ombudsman to take action against Councils that breach data protection legislation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because I do not consider that Mrs X has suffered a significant personal injustice which warrants out involvement. And she can complain to the ICO about a breach of data protection regulations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman