Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about dog fouling issues on a local road. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about an issue with dog fouling on a nearby road which is frequented by dog owners. He has made 30-40 reports of dog fouling on the road. The Council has installed pavement stencilling, signs and a rubbish bin on the road but this has not deterred irresponsible dog owners. Mr X says the Council is not taking the offence seriously enough. It has not issued any Fixed Penalty Notices to dog owners in the last three years. Mr X wants the Council to consider handing out leaflets to dog owners or, if the situation does not improve, to install CCTV to identify offenders.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about the matter set out in paragraph 1, above.
7. The Council explained that in order to take enforcement action in relation to dog fouling an authorised officer needs to witness the offence and obtain the name and address of the alleged offender in order to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice. It explained it is a notoriously difficult offence to identify as dog owners do not tend to allow the offence to happen in view of a Council officer. It explained the steps it has taken to educate dog owners who are using the road. This includes installing stencils on the pavement, additional warning signs highlighting the penalties for dog fouling and carrying out regular patrols of the road. It explained it does not have the additional resources required for other measures Mr X suggested and that it did not consider CCTV suitable in this case and it was very unlikely it would enable it to identify offenders and their addresses.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint, This is because, whilst I acknowledge Mr X’s dissatisfaction with the issue and the Council’s response, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant an investigation. It has taken suitable action to address the issue and has explained the difficulties faced in taking enforcement action in relation to this offence. It has not witnessed any offences being committed during its regular patrols to enable it to take enforcement action. This issue is caused by the actions of dog owners rather than the Council and there is no sign of fault in the way the Council has addressed the issue with its available resources. It is a matter for the Council to decide where best to allocate its limited resources and it is unlikely we could add to the response the Council has already provided via its own investigation of the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman