Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue Mr X a Community Protection Warning. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council conducted a bias investigation against his dogs. He said it resulted in a Community Protection Warning (CPW).
2. He said it affected his and his wife’s mental health and they have been forced to rent private fields to exercise their dogs. He wants the restrictions on his dogs removed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to issue him a CPW.
6. The Council reviewed a serious of incidents reported between 2012 and 2025 involving his dogs. It sought legal advice before it issued the CPW and attended Mr X’s home with the police to serve it.
7. In its complaint response the Council clearly explained the purpose of a CPW and that it was not mandatory that Mr X comply. It also explained that further incidents could lead to a Community Protection Notice.
8. The Ombudsman is 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 followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether you disagree with the decision the organisation made.
9. Mr X may disagree, but there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions when investigating his dogs, or its decision to issue a CPW to warrant our involvement.
10. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough fault to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman