Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint that the Council was at fault in issuing her with a Community Protection Warning and in responding to her subsequent complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would add anything significant to the investigation the Council has carried out.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mrs A, complains that the Council was at fault in issuing her with a Community Protection Warning (CPW) and in responding to her subsequent complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered what Mrs A has said in support of her complaint and the complaint correspondence provided by the Council.

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council’s dog warden issued Mrs A with a CPW following two incidents reported to the Council by another dog-owner. Mrs A complained that the Council had issued the CPW without any supporting information and without giving her the opportunity to refute the allegations made against her.
5. The Council upheld both parts of the complaint, finding that it should have given Mrs A the opportunity to comment on the allegations against her, and should not have issued the CPW without a covering letter. It accepted that there was no evidence to support the allegation that Mrs A’s dog had been aggressive. However, as the parties accepted that her dog had been off the lead on both occasions, the Council issued an amended CPW.
6. Mrs A was not satisfied with the Council’s response to her complaint and asked that it be escalated to the final stage of the Council’s corporate complaints procedure. The Council declined to do so, on the grounds that the complaint had already been upheld. Mrs A complained to the Ombudsman.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint because it is unlikely we would add anything significant to the investigation the Council has carried out. This established that the Council was at fault, as Mrs A had alleged. The Council has apologised and agreed to make procedural changes. There is therefore nothing significant left for the Ombudsman to investigate.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate the Council’s decision to reissue the CPW. It seems that this was issued on the basis of uncontested facts and the Council’s officers were entitled to use their professional judgement in deciding to issue it. There are no grounds for the Ombudsman to intervene.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would add anything significant to the investigation the Council has carried out.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman