Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about officer A of the Council initially refusing to register her report of dog excrement to the rear of her property, and how the Council dealt with the dog mess or the behaviour of officer A. There is not enough significant personal injustice caused to Mrs X by the Council’s initial refusal to register her report, or in how it dealt with the excrement, to warrant investigation. Any injustice caused by the Council not taking her report was remedied by its apology and there is no different outcome to be achieved by investigating. There is also no different outcome to be achieved from investigating the complaint about how the Council has dealt with officer A.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. initially failed to take her report about dog mess near her house;
2. failed to address the bullying attitude of the staff member who did not take her report;
3. failed to properly deal with the dog fouling issue.
2. Mrs X says being stopped from reporting the matter meant she was badly affected emotionally because she felt ignored, hurt, traumatised, and bullied. She believes her family is also being targeted by people leaving excrement and other rubbish behind her property. Mrs X says it is a health risk, smells and attracts flies. She wants the Council to investigate future reports in a more responsive way, investigate the bullying by its staff and install CCTV cameras.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council accepts it was wrong for officer A to not take Mrs X’s report of the dog excrement, and for the unhelpful responses they gave. It has apologised for the poor service officer A provided to Mrs X which is the appropriate remedy. I recognise Mrs X says she was distressed by the incident. However, she was able to make her report soon after to other officers. Mrs X says the excrement was partly cleared the next day. Even if the Council could have removed all of it, and sooner, there is not enough subsisting significant personal injustice to Mrs X caused by it, nor by the outcome of her initial attempt to report the matter to the Council, to warrant us investigating.
6. I note Mrs X has not accepted the Council’s apology for her call with officer A. However, an apology is the outcome we would have sought here had we investigated. There is no different outcome we would achieve for Mrs X by investigating this matter, so we will not do so.
7. Mrs X says the Council has not investigated and failed to deal with officer A. The Council says the officer accepted the criticism of their call with Mrs X. This means there would be no requirement for an investigation. The Council has sought to assure Mrs X that the appropriate action has been taken with officer A. The Ombudsman would not be involved in councils’ internal personnel issues. It is for the Council as the employer to decide what action it should take against its staff. There is no different outcome we would achieve for Mrs X by investigating this part of the complaint so will not do so.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough ongoing significant personal injustice caused to Mrs X by the Council’s initial refusal to register her report, or in the way it dealt with the dog excrement, to warrant an investigation; and
• any injustice caused by the Council’s officer not taking her report has been remedied by its apology and there is no different outcome to be achieved; and
• there is no different outcome to be achieved by investigating the internal personnel issue relating to the Council’s actions with its own staff.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman