Carlisle City Council (22 008 534)
Category : Environment and regulation > Other
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 23 Oct 2022
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a Community Protection Warning letter to Mr X. there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
- Mr X complained about the Council issuing a Community Protection Warning letter following complaints about his dog from a neighbour.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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:
- there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
- we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
- further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Mr X says he was visited by Council officers following a complaint from a neighbour about his dog. He was given a Community Protection Warning letter which he says was unreasonable as his dog was not a threat to anyone in public.
- The Council says Mr X was not co-operative with the officer who had visited following a second complaint about the dog within three months and a visit was carried out with a PCSO as both incidents had been reported to the Police. The warning letter was posted through Mr X’s letter box when he closed the door enforcement manager during the visit.
- Mr X complained to the Council and claimed the officer’s manager was related to the neighbour as they shared the same surname. The Council confirmed this was not the case and the warning was issued at the officer’s discretion.
- We may not question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make, unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process.
Final decision
- We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing a Community Protection Warning letter to Mr X. there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman