Summary: We will not investigate the Council’s decision not to implement a public spaces protection order. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions. In addition, we will not investigate the Council’s response to Miss X’s reports of odour pollution. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council will not implement a public spaces protection order (PSPO) to address increased pigeons in her area. She also complained the Council has not taken action to address odour pollution taking place near her home despite receiving numerous reports about this.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 Miss X.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X reported her concerns about pigeons perching above her flat caused by bird feeding taking place at a nearby lake in 2024 but did not receive a response. She complained again in 2025 and said the issue was ongoing. She asked the Council to implement a PSPO along with measures to create awareness of the issues caused by irresponsible feeding.
6. She separately complained about odour pollution taking place at the business near her home and said the Council failed to address this despite receiving several reports about it.
7. The Council acknowledged it did not respond to Miss X’s original complaint but confirmed it did respond to two Councillors who contacted it on her behalf. The Council apologised for this and explained it considered implementing a PSPO, but the situation did not meet the statutory threshold and it would be difficult to enforce. The Council said it was for the Parish Council and the owner of the lake to discuss other options such as signage and pest prevention measures.
8. Regarding the odour pollution complaint, the Council held no records of Miss X’s complaint but confirmed it served an abatement notice some years earlier when it received reports of noise and odour pollution in the past. The Council signposted Miss X to the process to report odour pollution and invited her to provide completed diary sheets if she wished further investigation to take place.
9. Miss X remains unhappy with the Council’s actions and wants us to find it at fault. The Ombudsman cannot comment on the merits of a decision a Council has made, provided it has followed the correct process. The Council considered Miss X’s request for a PSPO and did not find it met the required tests for this measure. The Council has clarified the lake is privately owned and it is for the owner and Parish Council to consider other measures to address the problem. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council made this decision. An investigation would therefore be unlikely to result in a finding of fault in the Council’s actions.
10. It would have been best practice for the Council to respond to Miss X’s complaint regarding the pigeons when she first made it. The Council has acknowledged this and apologised for the injustice caused to her by this. There is no evidence this part of the complaint has caused her a significant ongoing injustice.
11. The Council has directed Miss X to complete diary sheets if she wishes it to pursue further investigation regarding the odour pollution complaint. I cannot know why it does not hold record of her original complaint however the Council has responded to this part of the complaint in the way I would expect it to. An investigation into this part of the complaint would therefore be unlikely to result in a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault with the Council’s actions. In addition, we will not investigate because an investigation would be unlikely to result in a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman