Summary: We will not investigate Mr X complaint about the Council's handling of his complaints about dog excrement in his street and about clearing his reports without actually clearing the mess. This is because the claimed fault has not caused any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his complaints about dog excrement in his street. He says the Council has failed to take effective action to address the issue. He is also unhappy the Council clears his reports without actually clearing the mess.

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: any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says his street has a problem with dog excrement. Mr X complains the Council is not taking action to catch the person leaving the mess and that it is clearing his reports about the excrement without actually clearing it.
7. In its complaint response, the Council explained that there were some occasions where the cleaning crew did not find the reported dog excrement and had incorrectly marked the report as cleared. The Council said feedback has been given to staff that where the excrement is not found, the report should be marked as such. The Council apologised for this.
8. The Council said it responds to the reports made about the excrement and staff are sent to clean it up. The Council also explained it is very challenging to identify perpetrators of dog fouling as it is quick and there is no evidence trail.
9. An investigation is not justified as the claimed fault has not caused any significant injustice. I acknowledge it is frustrating that Mr X has to witness his local area be in an unclean state but this is not significant enough to justify an investigation. Further, the Council has a mechanism in place for him to report the excrement to enable the Council to clear it up and the evidence is the Council is clearing up the excrement where it is found.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the claimed fault has not caused significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman