Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to act following a report of littering. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions and the complainant has not suffered significant personal injustice to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr J complains the Council refuses to act against a person who he has reported for leaving dog hair after grooming their dog every week in a park near his home.
2. The Council says grooming a dog in the park is not an offence and cannot commit scare resources to this issue.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr J including details of the Council’s response to his complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Final decision

6. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. And we do not consider Mr J has suffered enough personal injustice to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman