Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to rehome Mr X’s dog. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation. Also, we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council rehomed his dog without his permission. He wants the dog returned.

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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says he complied with all legal requirements to bring his dog to the UK to be with his family. He has provided documents which state the dog had a microchip implanted before it left his former home country.
6. The Council confirmed it was notified in June that Mr X’s dog, which I shall call Z, had arrived at the airport.
7. Council officers attended the airport and scanned Z. Unfortunately, officers could not find the microchip. This was despite using different scanners, three separate times.
8. Without the microchip, the Council could not confirm the paperwork provided with Z. Therefore Z had to be quarantined.
9. The Council does not provide kennels. A private facility provides kennel services for quarantine. It sets its own timescales for quarantine and fees.
10. The Council says as a microchip could not be found in Z, the options available to Mr X were to either pay the quarantine deposit within four hours or the dog would be put down.
11. Mr X advised the Council he could not pay the £1,500.00 deposit. To avoid distress to Mr X and his family, the Council paid the deposit. This gave Mr X time to pay the deposit and the remaining quarantine fees over the coming four months which was the time Z had to spend in quarantine.
12. The Council confirms the kennels told Mr X the fees for Z and the length of time she would be in quarantine for. It received a copy of the invoice issued to Mr X by the kennels.
13. Three days after Z arrived in the UK, the Council met Mr X with an interpreter. It explained the quarantine process, the fees he had to pay and when the payments were due. Officers told Mr X he must contact the kennels direct to discuss payment. Mr X understood but stated he could not afford to pay the fees. Again, the Council says officers stressed he must contact the kennels.
14. In August the kennels advised the Council that Mr X had not contacted them and had not made any payments. To avoid Z being put down, the Council paid the kennel costs in full for the duration of the quarantine period. This brought the total bill to £6,642.00.
15. In October the kennels notified the Council that Z was to be released from quarantine. It confirmed Mr X had not contacted them at all while they had the dog.
16. The Council also noted Mr X was living in asylum accommodation where you cannot keep pets.
17. As the quarantine period had ended, the kennels released Z to the Council.
18. The Council noted:
• Despite several scanners being used multiple times, no microchip was found in Z.
• Mr X was told in his native language about the length of time Z would have to be in quarantine and the fees that he would have to pay.
• Mr X was told he must contact the kennels directly to pay the fees.
19. I understand Mr X did not contact the kennels to discuss payments or request a payment plan. Had the Council not paid the fees the dog would have been put down. As Mr X cannot keep pets at his accommodation, the Council rehomed the dog.
20. I acknowledge Mr X’s family arranged for the dog to be microchipped before they brought it to the UK. I also understand the distress Mr X and his family have suffered at the loss of their pet. However, I have not seen enough evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s dog.

Back to top

Final decision

21. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council's actions. Also, the dog has been permanently rehomed and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman