Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about dog fouling because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, says the Council has ignored his reports of dog fouling in a park. He wants the Council to patrol, clean the area and ban dogs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. In late 2024 Mr X made two reports of dog fouling in a park. He then complained about the Council’s response.
5. The Council explained it had only received Mr X’s two reports of dog fouling and, since his complaint, it had completed ten patrols. It said there are signs and dogs are excluded from the play area. The Council also said cleaning is the responsibility of the Town Council. The Dog Control Public Spaces Protection Order is due for renewal and the Council said Mr X can contribute to the consultation.
6. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The frequency of patrols is driven by the number of reports and, as there have only been two reports of dog fouling, that would not highlight a need for more patrols in this park. That said, the Council arranged more patrols following Mr X’s reports and, if there was a particular issue, it would be expected that more people would have made a report. In addition, cleaning is the responsibility of the Town Council. Mr X can contribute to the consultation which will give him the chance to explain that he thinks dogs should be banned.
7. There is nothing to suggest fault in the Council’s response and no reason to start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman