Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about how the Council handled a report about his dog’s behaviour. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains about the Council’s investigation into a report about his dog’s behaviour. He says this caused him stress and worry. He wants the Council to apologise, withdraw its investigation outcome, and review its procedures for such reports.

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. (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, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. I also considered the Council’s animal licensing and welfare policy, published on its website.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Government guidance confirms a local authority can take action if a dog is causing, or likely to cause, nuisance or harm. It can choose from a range of powers, including educating dog owners, issuing a warning, or serving a community protection notice.
7. Mr B complained that it was disproportionate for the Council to investigate a single, minor report about his dog’s behaviour. He said its investigation was one-sided because it ignored his evidence and relied on a witness who was not independent. He said the investigation had also empowered other residents to harass him about his dog’s behaviour.
8. In its response, the Council referred to its animal licensing and welfare policy which says it will investigate complaints about dogs acting aggressively or who appear to be out of control. It said this applied to the complaint it received about Mr B’s dog, so it chose to investigate.
9. The Council explained how it investigated this complaint. This included considering relevant photographic evidence and contacting Mr B and a witness for further information. It explained it did not consider some of Mr B’s evidence because it was not relevant to the reported incident. It said it considered the witness’s information because it was satisfied of their independence.
10. The Council said its investigation outcome was to provide Mr B with advice about dog control. It said it was satisfied this was appropriate and proportionate based on the evidence and its available options. The Council also signposted Mr B to the police to report alleged harassment from other residents.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council acted within its discretion under government guidance and in line with its policy. Its decision and steps taken to investigate appear appropriate. It told Mr B the reasons for its decision, and the outcome was within its available powers. It was appropriate to signpost Mr B’s reports of other residents’ harassment to the police. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of this matter to justify investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman