Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not taking responsibility for its vermin trap hurting a hedgehog and that it has committed a wildlife law offence. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating. The police and courts are the bodies better placed to consider the legal offence allegation. There is not enough significant personal injustice caused to Mrs X by the matters complained of to justify us investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council has used sprung traps to deal with a vermin problem in its area. She complains the Council:
1. is not taking responsibility for its traps hurting a hedgehog;
2. has committed an offence.
2. Mrs X says suffering caused to a hedgehog is unacceptable. She says the situation is extremely stressful and avoidable. Mrs X says she is frustrated the Council is not taking the correct steps to avoid harm to hedgehogs.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• there is another body better placed to consider the complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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. Mrs X says the Council has not taken responsibility for one of its traps hurting a hedgehog. The Council investigated Mrs X’s report. Its complaint reply first considered whether the trap found with the hedgehog on open ground was one its officers had set, placed in tamper-proof enclosures. The complaints officer spoke to the pest control officer who advised all their traps were found in their enclosures. Officers said the trap causing the hedgehog injury may not have been one of theirs, but the rest of the complaint response proceeds on the basis that its trap may have caused the injury. The complaints officer sets out the legal background, confirms the traps used are of a legally allowed design, that pest control officers are suitably qualified and take precautions as far as is practicable to reduce risks to species other than the target vermin. The Council’s response shows officers investigated Mrs X’s report that its actions injured the hedgehog but could not determine whether that was the case. Officers have taken as much responsibility for the incident Mrs X reported as their investigation allowed. They have then explained how they consider they comply with law and guidance and take seriously their responsibilities to wildlife. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s response or actions here to warrant us investigating.
6. We note Mrs X considers the Council’s trap causing injury to the hedgehog was an offence. It is for the police and legal system to determine if there has been any offence under wildlife-related laws. Only the police can investigate and decide to refer the matter to a court. We understand Mrs X has reported the incident to the police. If she continues to believe the Council committed an offence, she could pursue this with the police. The police and courts are the bodies better placed to consider this legal issue so we will not investigate it.
7. Even if there was fault by the Council in how it dealt with the vermin infestation and that fault led to an injury to a hedgehog, we would not have investigated. We recognise Mrs X has strong feelings about hedgehog protection, informed in part by previous experiences at her own property, and the matter has caused her upset, distress and frustration. But an injury to an animal, found by another person away from Mrs X’s home, is insufficiently significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating. There is also not enough significant injustice caused to her by the Council complaint reply to justify us investigating.
8. We recognise Mrs X may disagree with national laws on animal traps. If she wants changes to these laws, this would be a matter for her to raise with her MP, her national government representative who has standing to pursue changes to country-wide legislation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant us investigating; and
• the police and courts are the bodies better placed to consider whether the Council committed an offence under wildlife legislation; and
• there is not enough significant personal injustice caused to her by the matters complained of to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman