Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s licencing of a dog breeder. Part of the complaint is late and there is no good reason why it could not have been made sooner. There is no worthwhile achievable outcome for the remainder of his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council have not followed statutory dog breeding licensing procedures which led to a family cat’s death.
2. Mr X says he has welfare concerns for the dogs at the licensed property and he says, the Council have not done anything about this.
3. Mr X complained his family have had to deal with years of noise and odour from the licensed breeder’s property that have not been investigated by the Council. He says this caused him to move house.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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 there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X complained to the Council in 2021 about noise, odour, and dog breeding from a neighbouring property.
9. In February 2024 Mr X complained again to the Council that a neighbour was given a dog breeding licence. He said that this should not have been given because of previous noise and odour complaints and issues with planning permission.
10. Mr X also complained the Council had failed in their duty to safeguard his family after a dog escaped from the breeder’s property into his garden, killing his pet cat.
11. He complained a lack of action by the Council meant he incurred costs replacing his fence and needing to move house.
12. The Council replied to Mr X saying that the licence had been awarded correctly. It advised the breeding licence had not been suspended as actions taken by the breeder were quick and compliant.
13. The Council said concerns about a dog at the breeder’s property had been dealt with by the Police. And anti-social behaviour in relation to this matter should be reported to the Police.
14. The Council said it had no animal welfare concerns in relation to the breeding licence and that Mr X’s planning concerns had been passed to relevant Council departments.

Analysis

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about events in 2021. This part of his complaint is late and there are no good reasons why Mr X could not have complained sooner.
16. Mr X chose to move house in July 2024 and no longer lives next to the licenced breeder, therefore there is no meaningful outcome we could now achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because part of it is late and there are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply. Mr X no longer lives next to the property. There is no worthwhile outcome by our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman