Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not taking action against a neighbour feeding wildlife and how it investigated the matter. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating. We cannot achieve the outcomes Mrs X seeks from the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X’s neighbour has several feeders for wildlife in their gardens, which border hers. She complains the Council:
1. has not taken action to prevent the neighbour feeding the wildlife;
2. failed to properly investigate the matter.
2. Mrs X wants the Council to:

• educate her neighbour about environmental health, disease risks of the animals and the damage they cause;
• ask the neighbour to put out less food;
• offer her a contribution to her expenses from repairs of damage to her property, and costs of preventative works.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. 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

5. I considered information from Mrs X and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
7. In response to Mrs X’s concerns, the Council visited her neighbour’s property to see the feeders in place. An officer found a number of feeders. They noted the area under them was clear of food debris. They advised Mrs X they did not consider the feeding to be excessive or unreasonable, or that the neighbour’s actions were inappropriate or unlawful. The officer decided they did not have grounds to take any further action against the neighbour.
8. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here to warrant us investigating. The Council visited and considered relevant evidence about the matter to reach the view that it would not take further action. Officers concluded the actions of the neighbour did not justify the taking formal action such as enforcement. It was for officers to determine, on the evidence of the feeding that they gathered, whether they had grounds to take any action. That was a professional judgement decision the officers were entitled to take. We recognise Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. Mrs X wants the Council to educate her neighbour about the impacts of their actions and tell them to reduce the number of feeders. We cannot order councils to take such action against a neighbour. Mrs X also wants the Council to contribute to the repair and preventative works costs she has had due to damage from wildlife. We cannot make a finding that the Council is responsible for any damage to her property or the costs of works. It is only an insurer or the courts which can make those kinds of decisions. If Mrs X believes the Council is liable for property damage and other costs, she would need to make a claim against the Council’s insurers. If she is dissatisfied with the claim’s outcome, it would then be a matter she would need to put before the court. That we cannot achieve the complaint outcomes Mrs X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcomes she seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman