Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council issued a Fixed Penalty Notice to Mrs X for failing to keep her dogs on a lead in a protected public space. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the way the Council issued a fixed penalty notice to her for failing to keep her dogs on a lead in a protected public space. She also says the Council delayed responding to her request for information.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

3. We may also 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X says she was walking her dogs on playing fields and briefly allowed the dogs to go on to the sports pitches. A Council enforcement officer issued her with a Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) for failing to keep her dogs on a lead in an area covered by a Public Spaces Protection Order.
7. Mrs X paid the fine. However, she complained to the Council about way the fine was issued. She also complained about how the Council responded to her request for the officer’s body camera footage.
8. The Council responded to her complaint. It said:
• the officer was wearing appropriate uniform and was suitably dressed to perform her role. The fact she was wearing her own hat did not detract from her uniform and she was clearly identifiable.
• The officer was wearing her Council identification card on her uniform and carrying information setting out her authority to act under certain legislation. The identification badge met the Council’s requirements and did not need the additional features Mrs X had suggested.
• The officer was driving a Council fleet car. There was no requirement for this to be marked.
• Its data protection team had decided not to release the camera footage to her as it contained third party information.
9. Mrs X remained unhappy and brought the complaint to us.
10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. Mrs X paid the fine and in doing so, discharged her liability for any offence. If Mrs X did not agree with the issuing of the fine, she could have waited for the Council to prosecute and raised a defence in court.
11. The officer was wearing uniform and had identification documents in line with Council requirements. There is no requirement for Council to mark their cars. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation into these points.
12. If Mrs X has concerns about how the Council has handled her request for information, she can complain to the Information Commissioner. This is the body best placed to deal with complaints about information requests.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman