Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his neighbour shooting wildlife. The Council have agreed to a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not investigate his report about his neighbour shooting wildlife in their garden and provided him incorrect advice.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

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. Mr X informed the Council his neighbour was shooting wildlife in their garden. The Council told him shooting wildlife was not illegal.
6. The police are responsible for investigating offenses under the Firearms Act 1968. The police would also be the correct body to investigate this report under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It would have been appropriate for the Council to signpost Mr X to the police.
7. Councils have a general duty to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB). ASB can take many different forms; and when someone reports a problem, councils should decide which of their powers is most suitable. The Council did not consider its powers to tackle ASB when responding to Mr X’s report.
8. The Council recognise it gave Mr X the wrong advice. It has agreed to provide Mr X with a symbolic payment and consider the matter under their ASB powers. This is a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We have upheld Mr X’s complaint. The Council have agreed to a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman