Buckinghamshire Council (24 022 200)
Category : Environment and regulation > Other
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 01 Jun 2025
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s dog warden. This is because an investigation would not add to the one carried out by the Council.
The complaint
- Mrs X complains that the Council’s dog warden failed to protect the welfare of a stray dog.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Mrs X runs a charity for dogs which fostered a stray dog that had been taken in by the dog warden. Mrs X complained that the Council returned the dog to the owner despite it being in a state of neglect and with the owner failing to register the dog’s microchip.
- In response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council found that the dog warden had found that its microchip had not been registered and had considered the condition of the dog and concluded that there was no cause for concern. The dog warden therefore made the decision to provide advice to the owner, rather than referring the matter to the RSPCA.
- The Council said that it has no powers to seize a dog because of its condition. It noted that the RSPCA had decided to take no further action in response to the concerns raised by Mrs X.
- I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. The Council has fully investigated the concerns raised by Mrs X and considered relevant information. It fully explained the reasoning behind the conclusions reached by the dog warden and the actions taken. Investigation by the Ombudsman would not add to the one carried out by the Council. Whilst Mrs X feels strongly that a different approach should have been taken, this does not mean the Council has done anything wrong.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman