Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to reports of dog fowling. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement and we could not achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council delayed its response to her reports of dog fouling near her home. She said it did not visit the area for 10 days. She said she suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder and was unable to leave her home. She said she ordered a sofa which was placed briefly on her doormat and now she will not use it. She wants compensation.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

(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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X complained to the Council in September 2024. The Council explained that it discussed the complaint with Miss X. It said it set out what it would do to resolve the issue of dog fowling. It said it would stencil and clean the area and Ms X confirmed she was happy with the resolution.
6. Ms X then made a formal complaint in April 2026 and said she was not satisfied with how the Council handled her complaint in 2024. The Council followed its complaints policy and said it would not respond to the complaint because it was not made within 12 months of the issue.
7. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council discussed the issue with Ms X and set out what it would do in response. It confirmed after a site visit that there was no fowl identified. The Council followed its policy when it declined to investigate Ms X’s complaint. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant the Ombudsman’s involvement.
8. In addition, Ms X has asked for compensation as a result of her complaint. This is not something the Ombudsman could achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement and we could not achieve the outcome Ms X wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman