Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alledged failure by the Council for sending the complainant a warning letter about his dog allegedly straying and fouling. This is because there is insufficient evidence of the complainant having been caused a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation. The complaint also raised issues about data protection which we will not investigate as we are not the appropriate body to consider these.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Mr X) complains the Council has unjustifiably threatened him with prosecution following a report of his dog straying and fouling unsupervised. He says the allegations reported, and subsequent warning letter issued by the Council have no legal basis. Mr X also complains the Council has inappropriately misused his personal data. He explains the Council disclosed his name to a neighbour about dog related reports he made to the Council anonymously.
2. In summary, Mr X says the release of his personal data to his neighbour created animosity and resulted in him being assaulted. As a desired outcome, Mr X wants the Council to accept its failings and that it has no basis to take any action.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In mid-2024, the Council says it received a complaint alleging Mr X’s dog was straying and fouling while left unsupervised. A number of days later, the Council sent Mr X a letter which set out the alledged contraventions, applicable legislation and gave information which warned that behaviour of the kind could amount to a criminal offence. The Council explained the restrictions on dogs in the area are the result of a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) it implemented following a public consultation. The Council has told Mr X the PSPO is due to expire in October 2026 and he is welcome to provide his views on any future PSPO which will would also be subject to further consultation.
7. I do not propose to assess where there has been any fault in Mr X’s case. The Ombudsman is only required to accept a complaint where the complainant has been caused a significant and personal injustice because of fault by the Council. This means Mr X would need to show he has suffered serious loss, harm or distress due to the alledged failings. In this case, Mr X disputes the allegations reported to the Council. While I recognise he is therefore unhappy to have received a warning letter, I do not consider he has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a result. The Council’s letter was limited to relaying allegations reported and providing Mr X with information about the PSPO and the possible consequences of a breach to this. As it stands, no action has or is being taken against Mr X and there is no evidence of any conditions being imposed on him which restrict his normal activities. There is insufficient evidence of Mr X having been caused a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.
8. Separately, I note Mr X also complaints about the Council misuse of his personal data. We cannot make binding decisions as to data protection matters, nor enforce data rights. The appropriate body to consider and decide such matters is the ICO. I see no reason why Mr X cannot reasonably refer this part of his complaint to this body. We are not the appropriate body this part of the complaint and so we will not consider it further.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint because the restrictions I outline at paragraphs three and four (above) apply.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman