Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint there was no dog warden available when he rescued a stray dog from the motorway. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complains the Council had no dog warden service available to take in a stray dog Mr B had rescued from the motorway. Mr B says this left him with the responsibility for ensuring the safety of the dog and trying to return it to its owner.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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, or
• 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 (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr B provided and the complaint correspondence between Mr B and the Council. I have considered relevant legislation and I considered the comments Mr B made in reply to a draft decision before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr B has explained he found a stray dog on the motorway, rescued it, took it to a place of safety and contacted Brentwood Borough Council (the Council). The Council told Mr B its dog warden was not working that day and suggested Mr B contact a named kennels or post on a Facebook page to see if the dog owner came forward.
7. Mr B says the Council has failed to meet its duties under the Environmental Protection Act 1980 (EPA) and he wants the Council to ensure there is a robust system in place if the dog warden is unavailable.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate because further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council. Section 149 of the EPA refers to local authority responsibilities where a dog is ‘found in the area of the authority’ and also says ‘…where the officer has reason to believe that any dog found in a public place or on any other land or premises is a stray dog, he shall (if practicable) seize the dog and detain it…’
9. As the dog was not found in the Council’s area and the legislation says officers ‘shall where practicable’ rather than ‘must’ seize dogs that are found, there are no reasons for the Ombudsman to criticise the Council.
10. I also note the Council advised Mr B he could contact the kennels it uses, so it provided an alternative to the dog warden while they were unavailable. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman