Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council handled Mr Y’s concerns about dog control in an area within its area. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council considered Mr Y’s concerns to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council did not properly act on his concerns about dog control in an area within its area, and its handling of his complaint about the matter.
2. Mr Y said this caused him frustration and distress.
3. Mr Y wants the Council to use its powers to tackle the matter, install permanent signage in the area and start enforcement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y complained to the Council about dog control in an area within its area. The Council responded to Mr Y’s complaint at both stages of its complaints procedure.
8. The Council told Mr Y it would install signage highlighting dog control and would look to increase officer activity in the area. The Council said it would add the area into the consultation process for its Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) for dog control, expiring in late 2026. The area concerned is not subject to the PSPO.
9. The Council also said it would ask officers to consider if any amendments were required to the existing PSPO given Mr Y’s views. It ultimately decided amendments were not required prior to the statutory consultation for the expiring PSPO.
10. Mr Y remained dissatisfied after the Council’s complaints procedure had ended. Mr Y said the signage the Council put up was inadequate, and immediate action was not forthcoming.
11. Councils have a range of powers they can use to tackle antisocial behaviour which are set out in the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 (‘the 2014 Act’).
12. A council may make a public space protection order (PSPO) to stop individuals or groups committing antisocial behaviour in a public space if it is satisfied the behaviour is having, or is likely to have, a detrimental effect on local quality-of-life. PSPO’s can place restrictions on a public area including requiring dogs to be on a lead in a specific public area.
13. Section 72 of the 2014 Act states that a council, in deciding whether to make a PSPO or whether to extend or vary a PSPO, must carry out the necessary consultation and publicity and the necessary notification. The council must consult the local police, any community representatives it considers appropriate and the owner or occupier of land within the restricted area. The council should publish the text of the proposed order or variation and tell the parish council.
14. We will not investigate this complaint. In making its decision, the Council took account of the relevant guidance, its own policies and information from Mr Y. The Council followed the appropriate procedures when making this decision.
15. 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 Mr Y disagrees with the decision and actions the Council took.
16. We will also not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we decide not to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman