Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to act on her report of an intimidating dog in a property next to a public footpath. The Ombudsman discontinued its investigation into Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient injustice to her, and the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to act on her report of an intimidating dog in a property next to a public footpath in her area.
2. Ms X says this meant she was not comfortable using the footpath on a walk and had to take a diversion.

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:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered:
• all the information Ms X provided and discussed the complaint with her; and
• the Council’s response to Ms X’s complaint.
5. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. In June 2020, Ms X complained to the Council. She said she had been walking on a footpath which ran past some properties. One of the properties had a fence separating it from the footpath. Ms X says an aggressive dog was at the property fence and was barking and snarling. Ms X did not feel the fence was adequate to prevent the dog from jumping over. Ms X says she did not feel comfortable passing the dog and so took a detour.
7. The Council responded to say it could only act if the dog could access the footpath. As the dog had not breached the fence, it could not resolve Ms X’s concerns.
8. Ms X was unhappy with the Council’s response and complained to the Ombudsman.
9. Ms X wants the Council to speak to the dog’s owner and ask them to increase the height of the fence.
10. Ms X confirmed she only uses the footpath occasionally when she is on walks in the area.

Findings

11. The Ombudsman investigates complaints where there is evidence of significant personal injustice to the complainant. Ms X says she uses the footpath irregularly for recreational walks. I do not consider Ms X's discomfort in using the footpath on occasion constitutes significant personal injustice.
12. The Ombudsman cannot require the Council increase the height or security of the fence. Nor can the Ombudsman require the Council to contact the owner of the dog to discuss Ms X’s concerns. It is therefore unlikely investigation would result in the outcome Ms X desires.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have discontinued my investigation into Ms X’s complaint. There is insufficient injustice to Ms X and the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman