Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council’s dog warden dealt with a stray dog. From the information we have seen further investigation is unlikely to add to that carried out by the Council. And we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that following the collection of a dog as a stray, the Council’s dog warden returned the dog to people with no proof of ownership. This is despite markers on the dog’s microchip stating it should be returned to Mr X’s charity.
2. He says the people mistreated the dog and agreed to give her to Mr X’s charity. Sadly, the dog was too ill to be saved and died soon after.
3. Mr X wants the Council’s process for dealing with microchipped dogs investigated and the dog warden disciplined.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X runs a charity for dogs.
8. The dog warden collected a stray dog. He contacted the two telephone numbers listed on the dog’s identity microchip. There was no answer.
9. While he was trying to contact the keeper, a man stopped his van stating he had lost his dog. He gave an accurate description of the dog. The warden accompanied the man to his home, where he says the dog became visibly excited to see the family. It was his opinion that the dog belonged to the family.
10. Mr X raised concerns with the Council. Officers visited the family to check on its welfare. The family advised they could no longer care for the dog, and they had arranged to transfer her into Mr X’s care.
11. The dog had an inoperable tumour and had to be put to sleep a few weeks after being returned to Mr X.
12. Mr X complained about the dog warden’s decision to return the dog to the family, rather than to him.
13. The Council has confirmed what information was available to the warden from the dog’s microchip. It checked with the microchip provider about the information contained on the chip. It has also sought legal advice on the actions taken. The Council confirmed the legal advice it received states that there is nothing to suggest the warden was either negligent or in breach of the statutory process.
14. The Council has considered whether it should change its procedures on dealing with stray dogs. However, it has decided this would result in a less compassionate and less efficient service. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is clear from the responses to the complaint that the Council has investigated Mr X’s concerns, including seeking information from the microchip company and legal advice. Therefore, I consider further investigation is unlikely to add to that carried out by the Council.
16. Also, Mr X wants disciplinary action taken against the dog warden. We cannot intervene in the action of the Council as an employer. Therefore, we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman