Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the fees the Council charged for seizing her dog. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X says the Council wrongly seized her dog and charged her £71 for returning it to her. Ms X also says the Council kept her dog for longer than necessary.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. As part of my assessment I have

• considered Ms X’s complaint, her correspondence with the Council and the Council’s explanation of what happened; and
• issued a draft decision inviting Ms X to respond.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms X says she left her dog in her enclosed garden while she went out. When she returned a short time later, she could not find her dog. She then went out looking for it.
5. Ms X says her neighbour then told her they had found the dog outside their house and called the Council.
6. Ms X says the animal warden from the Council had not long left and she tried to contact him. However, the warden told her he was already on the way to a receiving point and she would have to pay £71 to have her dog released. The dog was taken at 2pm and was not returned until 7pm because it took some time to process Ms X’s payment.
7. The Council’s response to Ms X’s complaint was it was entitled to charge the fees since Ms X’s neighbour had reported her dog to be a stray.
8. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990) section 149 says the Council has the right to seize stray dogs. Ms X said her dog had not strayed and that it had deliberately been taken out of her garden. However, as we were not present it would be difficult to say whether this is the case or not, especially as there is no evidence to support what Ms X says. However, that would not alter the fact the dog was in a public place or someone else’s land on its own, so the Council was able to act under section 149 of EPA 1990.
9. The Council followed the law when it responded to a call about a stray dog. It was also entitled to charge for any expenses incurred.
10. Ms X also says she called the Council as soon as the animal warden’s van left and it took a few hours to get her dog back. She also says if the Council had a scanner, then it would have known the dog was hers since her dog had a microchip.
11. However, neither the law nor the Council’s contract with the company providing the warden service requires wardens to carry a mobile scanner. Once Ms X’s dog was taken away by the warden service it would have had to identify the owner properly, notify them, and collect the fee as the law allows. It would not have been appropriate for the warden to simply turn back to Ms X’s address without first carrying out the necessary checks to confirm she is the dog’s owner.
12. I appreciate Ms X objects to the fees the Council charged, but the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body. We cannot intervene simply because someone disagrees.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman