Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainant’s report of a dangerous dog. This is because we see no suggestion of fault in the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. Mr X says he and his dog were attacked by a dangerous dog.
2. He would like the dog to be destroyed or forced to wear a muzzle.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and read the Council’s responses to Mr X.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says that when he was out for a walk with his dog, they were suddenly subjected to a “vicious, sustained and unprovoked” attack from a dangerous out of control dog. Mr X says his dog was bitten on the neck and he would also have been injured but for his boots. He is very unhappy with the response of the Council’s animal welfare officers and says the dangerous dog should be destroyed or muzzled.
7. Turning to the Council’s response, I have seen information showing it has advised Mr X that it has no powers to destroy dogs as that is for the Police. I see it also advised Mr X the various options available to it depending on the history, frequency, and nature of the dog attack.
8. As part of its investigation, I note the Council asked Mr X to provide information on any police call outs, hospital and veterinary visits arising from his report. Mr X says he called the Police but did not take any other action.
9. I have seen information showing the Council assessed the dog complained about and spoke to its owner. The Council decided that, in the absence of any previous incidents involving the dog and the apparently co-operative attitude of the dog owner, it was sufficient to request certain actions to mitigate against the possibility of the dog running out of his house and attacking anyone else.
10. It seems that due to Mr X’s continuing dissatisfaction, the Council also asked a senior officer to review its handling of the case. The outcome of this review was that the Council’s response had been proportionate. And it could not take the actions Mr X wanted as they were disproportionate.
11. We will not investigate as there are no grounds to criticise the Council’s actions here. It investigated Mr X’s concerns in some detail, including liaising with the Police. It decided to ask the owner of the dog in question to take steps to ensure the dog does not escape their house again and is kept on a lead when outside. This was a decision the Council is entitled to take despite it not being Mr X’s preferred outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no suggestion of fault in the way the Council has responded to Mr X’s concerns.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman