Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about statements a ranger made regarding Mr X’s dogs and their behaviour at a nearby Council managed park. This is because we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions and an investigation would not lead to a worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained a park ranger made false statements which led to the Council enforcing its policy to require dogs to stay on leads when near livestock.
2. Mr X said this has made it difficult for him to use the park and led to financial loss.

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:

• 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants
  (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Following an incident in a park during which one of Mr X’s dogs startled a stag, the Council told Mr X he could not walk his dogs in areas of the park meant for livestock unless they were on a lead. This is in line with the Council’s policy.
7. Mr X was unhappy with this and complained about statements made by the park ranger who was involved in the incident. He submitted tracker footage showing the areas his dogs had been and said the ranger lied about his dog’s movement and behaviour.
8. The Council investigated by returning to the location where the incident took place and interviewing the park ranger. The Council found that the ranger’s statements did not entirely correspond with Mr X’s tracker information but it was satisfied the ranger made his statements in good faith and there was no dispute that one of Mr X’s dogs had been in close proximity with a stag, causing it temporary distress.
9. Mr X remains unhappy with the Council’s decision and wants us to find it at fault. The Council has thoroughly investigated the matter and is satisfied the ranger made his statements based on his recollections, taking into account the length of time that had passed. This is a reasonable position for the Council to take and there is nothing further the Council can be expected to do. The evidence shows Mr X’s dog was close to a stag. The Council’s policy is clear that dogs near livestock should be on leads. The Council is entitled to enforce this policy and has previously informed Mr X it will keep it under review. An investigation into this matter is unlikely to result in a finding of fault. Even if we did find fault an investigation is not likely to achieve anything worthwhile.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as we would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions and an investigation would not lead to a worthwhile outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman