Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to properly investigate Mr X’s complaint about a boarding kennel nor its failure to respond to his complaint in line with its complaints process. This is because an investigation would not lead to a worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about coercive and manipulative tactics employed at a boarding kennel. He further complained the Council failed to properly respond to the complaint he raised about this. He said this matter caused him distress and upset.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council about coercive behaviour taking place at a boarding kennel his dog was placed in which was used to secure payment from him. He complained again when he did not receive a response.
7. Another council involved in the matter told Mr X the Council investigated and had provided a report, but he disputed this.
8. After some delay the Council confirmed it was not responsible for taking enforcement action against the kennel and no longer had a working relationship with it. The Council told Mr X a fee was required for release of the dog so he would not receive a refund, but it acknowledged the errors in its complaints handling and explained the actions it would take to prevent this happening in future.
9. Mr X remains unhappy with the situation and wants us to find the Council at fault. The evidence shows the Council has explained to Mr X why he was required to pay a fee for the dog’s release. It is not responsible for taking enforcement action against the kennel and in any event, it no longer works with this business. There is nothing further that can be achieved with regards to this aspect of the complaint. An investigation into this matter would be unlikely to result in a worthwhile outcome.
10. The Council has recognised that its complaints handling fell short of reasonable expectations, and it has explained how it will ensure this does not happen again in future. Whilst the evidence indicates the Council allowed this matter to drift and did not follow the correct complaints process at times, the Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint handling in cases where we are not investigating the substantive issues.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman