Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the fee he was charged for the return of his dog from kennels. 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’s contracted dog warden service took his dog to kennels rather than attempting to contact Mr B, and then charged him £71 for the dog’s return. Mr B says the Council should allow owners to collect their dogs and pay later, as it was a lot of money to find at short notice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered the information provided by Mr B and the Council’s response to Mr B’s complaint. I sent a draft decision to Mr B and invited comments before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B’s dog escaped from his property and was found by a member of the public who called the dog warden. A private company operates the dog warden service on behalf of the Council. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers.
6. The warden took Mr B’s dog to kennels, scanned it for a microchip and then contacted Mr B. Mr B was told he had to pay £71 within 48 hours for the return of his dog. If he did not pay within 48 hours, the fee would increase to £110 and if he did not collect his dog within 7 days it would be destroyed.
7. Mr B says the Council’s charges are unreasonable and it caused him difficulties trying to get the money together so his dog could be returned. Mr B says the Council should prioritise returning dogs to their owners over making money and people should be given the option to collect their dogs and pay the fee later.
8. While Mr B is unhappy with the charges for returning his dog, the Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council. The relevant legislation (Section 149 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990) says ‘…a person claiming to be the owner of a dog seized under this section shall not be entitled to have the dog returned to him unless he pays all the expenses incurred by reason of its detention and such further amount as is for the time being prescribed’ . It was not fault for the Council to ask Mr B to pay the fee before his dog was returned. I also note the Council has confirmed the charge would have applied if the warden had been able to locate Mr B before taking the dog to kennels.
9. In response to Mr B’s comments that finding the fee at short notice was difficult, the Council has said it will put in place a process to consider releasing a dog before the fee is paid where a person can demonstrate genuine hardship.

Back to top

Final decision

10. 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