Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not banning dogs from local nature reserves. There is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council have not agreed to ban pet dogs from local nature reserves.

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))

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 asked the Council to ban dogs from local nature reserves. He explained he is concerned about local wildlife and believes public dog walking is indecent.
6. The Council did not ban dogs from local nature reserves. While I recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision, this is not evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman