Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to implement a borough-wide ban of dogs in its public places. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council has refused to implement a district-wide ban of dogs in public places. He says dog fouling is indecent behaviour which damages the environment and it is unreasonable that he and other members of the public have to witness it.

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

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

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In its complaint response to Mr X, the Council said it already had a district-wide Public Space Protection Order which requires people in charge of dogs to clear up after them in public spaces. It added dog walking is a legal activity within the UK and the Council has no control over what animals people choose at pets. It said it considered it unreasonable to ban dogs from all public spaces and could not agree to his request.
7. The Council has to consider the needs of all residents within its area when deciding whether to impose restrictions on what people can and cannot do. It has appropriately considered his request and decided it is not reasonable to ban dogs from all public places. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how it has reached this decision and so we will not investigate further. In addition, we could not ask the Council to implement a district-wide dog ban and so we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and we could not achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman