Summary: Mr X complained that the Council misled him and his wife into believing it would remove a homeless man’s dog from their garden but then failed to do so. We found the Council was at fault in raising their expectations. In recognition of the distress caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs X and make a payment to them.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council misled him and his wife into believing that it would remove a dog from their garden which belonged to a homeless man, but it failed to do so. The dog injured his wife and destroyed their garden.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended).

3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information provided by Mr X and the documents provided by the Council.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

6. Mr and Mrs X allowed a homeless man, Mr Y, and his two dogs to stay in the veranda in their garden. On 16 January 2024 Mr X contacted the Council saying Mr Y wanted to relinquish one of the dogs. The Council explained that the dog would have to be assessed by a dog warden which may take a few days. It advised that the dog would be treated as a handover rather than a stray.
7. On 18 January a dog warden visited Mr and Mrs X’s home. They were concerned for the welfare of the dog and Mr Y’s mental health. The dog warden spoke to Mr Y who agreed to the dog being re-homed. He signed a handover form to authorise the dog warden service to take and rehome the dog in whichever way they considered best. The dog warden recorded in his notes that he explained what the process was and how long it would take.
8. On 19 January Mrs X contacted the dog warden service in a distressed state saying Mr Y was going to let the dog loose. He was threatening to kill it and she had had to intervene. She asked how the search was going for a placement for the dog.
9. The dog warden had contacted charities to try to find a placement for the dog but had been unsuccessful. He advised Mr and Mrs X that, if they felt the dog would be harmed or they felt threatened, they should call the police immediately. He advised that the process of trying to find a suitable charity to take the dog could take between two and nine days or even longer.
10. On 22 January the dog warden received a message from Mrs X saying the dog had blood all over its face and her garden had been destroyed. She said the dog was legally in the hands of the dog warden and it was their responsibility to take it.
11. The dog warden’s notes recorded that the dog’s details had been sent to nearly 500 charities all over the country but there had been no interest.
12. The dog warden telephoned Mrs X in response to her message. He explained that the Council did not legally own the dog and was still looking for a charity to take it. He explained that, as soon as a placement was found, he would remove the dog.
13. On 23 January the dog warden received a telephone call from the police stating that Mr Y had been taken to a bedsit but could not take the dog with him. The police explained that, because the dog was not regarded as a dangerous dog, they would not take it. The warden explained that the Council could not take it either because it was not a stray, but he was trying to find a charity to take it.
14. The following day Mrs X contacted the Council again saying the dog warden was supposed to collect the dog the previous week. She was concerned that it might escape and attack someone. The warden explained that, unfortunately, there was nothing further the Council could do because the dog was not a stray. Mrs S expressed concern about the dog being aggressive and the warden advised her to contact the police.
15. On 25 January the dog warden spoke to Mrs X. She was very distressed and said the dog had become aggressive and injured her. The police had seized the dog and removed it.

Analysis

16. Councils have a duty to enforce section 149 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which states that, where an officer has reason to believe that a dog is a stray, he will, if practicable, seize the dog and detain it. However, councils have no statutory duty to provide a re-homing service.
17. The Council provides a stray dog service via Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS). This is a shared service which delivers environmental health functions and licensing administration on behalf of district councils in Worcestershire. The dog wardens collect stray dogs but do not provide rehoming. However, they work with third parties, including animal charities, to attempt to re-home dogs in certain circumstances. The Council has explained that, if dogs are a banned breed or aggressive, it will not support their rehoming.
18. In this case, the dog had an owner so was not a stray. Consequently, the Council had no duty to collect it. However, the dog warden agreed to visit and attempt to facilitate rehoming.
19. The Council says that, at the visit, the dog warden explained that the process of finding a placement would start and, once a new home had been offered, the dog would be collected and transferred to the rehoming organisation. It says the dog owner remains responsible for the dog until the rehoming placement is confirmed and the dog removed. However, Mr and Mrs X offered to look after the dog so Mr Y could take up the offer of accommodation.
20. The Council says that, once the dog began showing signs of aggression, rehoming became unfeasible and it was no longer able to help.
21. Mr X says they were led to believe by the dog warden that the Council would accommodate the dog while the warden searched for a placement.
22. I find no fault in the Council failing to rehome the dog. It had no duty to do so. Accordingly, I do not hold the Council responsible for the damage caused by the dog.
23. However, I find the Council was at fault in raising Mr and Mrs X’s expectations. Mr Y signed the handover form stating that he authorised the dog warden service to take and rehome the dog in whichever way they considered best. The form stated, “I therefore relinquish all claim to ownership of the dog”. This wording raised Mr and Mrs X’s expectations as it led them to believe the Council was now responsible for the dog and would accommodate it until a placement was found. They suffered distress and inconvenience when the Council then failed to do so.
24. I have recommended a remedy for the injustice caused below. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies states that we can ask an organisation to make a payment to symbolise and acknowledge the distress a person has suffered because of its failings. We will normally recommend a remedy payment for distress of up to £500.
25. I am pleased that the Council has amended the wording on the dog handover form to make it clear that the dog will not be removed from the owner or guardian’s care until a placement is found. The form also clarifies that the Council has no duty to re-home the dog but will make reasonable attempts to do so.
26. If the Council had not already done this, I would have recommended this as a service improvement to avoid a similar situation arising in future.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. When a council commissions or arranges for another organisation to provide services we treat actions taken by or on behalf of that organisation as actions taken on behalf of the council and in the exercise of the council’s functions. Where we find fault with the actions of the service provider, we can make recommendations to the council alone. Here we have found fault with the actions of WRS and make the following recommendations to the Council.
28. The Council has agreed that, within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision, it will send a written apology to Mr and Mrs X for raising their expectations and pay them £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.
29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

30. I find fault by the Council causing injustice.
31. I have completed my investigation on the basis that the Council has agreed to implement the recommended remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman