Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about two Fixed Penalty Notices issued to the complainant for dog fouling. This is because a complaint to us is not a method to achieve the outcomes she is seeking.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss A, complained about two Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) issued by the Council for dog fouling and the actions of the enforcement officers.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
3. 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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. Miss A has had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making my final decision.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss A told us the Council’s Enforcement Officers approached her on two separate occasions and issued her with FPN’s for dog fouling. She paid a total penalty of £200. Miss A is seeking a remedy of mediation and discussion about the officers’ Body Worn Camera (BWC) footage and a refund of £200. She told us it is clear she has suffered injustice and there is a lack of evidence in this case.
8. The Council has a zero tolerance approach to dog fouling. A council can issue an FPN if it thinks somebody has committed an offence such as dog fouling. The person can pay the fine and the matter is closed. Alternatively, if they deny committing an offence, they can wait for the Council to prosecute and then raise a defence in court. The court then decides if they committed an offence. There is no requirement for the Council to offer mediation or a discussion on the BWC footage.
9. Miss A told us she paid the fine to relieve the mental pressure on her and her work. She told us she was not admitting guilt. Miss A told us the refund she had asked for is not the main issue. Rather, it is the lack of evidence and the Council’s process of giving the fines. She said she wants us to the view the officers’ BWC. Miss A is disputing the basis for the FPN. There is no role for us to consider such matters. We are not an appeal body. A court of law is the appropriate body to weigh up the evidence and decide whether Miss A had committed an offence when there is a dispute.
10. Miss A told us she does not have the funds to consider taking action through the courts. Whilst Miss A has explained her reasons for paying the FPNs, we have no powers to decide whether an offence has been committed or to overrule the Council’s decision. A complaint to us is not a method to achieve the outcomes Miss A is seeking.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss A’s complaint because a complaint to us is not a method to achieve the outcomes she is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman