Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to Mr X’s concerns about a licenced dog daycare provider. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate his concerns about a licenced dog daycare provider. He said he raised multiple concerns and the Council was not transparent about its investigation and how it used his evidence.
2. He said the way the Council handled his concerns had a direct and ongoing impact on him. He wants a review of the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X raised his concerns with the Council and supplied evidence.
7. In response to Mr X’s concerns the Council undertook two unannounced site inspections which concluded there were no welfare concerns with any dogs on site and no issues with non-compliance.
8. Mr X complained the investigation was not transparent and asked how the Council used his evidence.
9. In its complaint response the Council said it used Mr X’s evidence to determine the inspections were required. It explained the role of the inspectors and confirmed the areas it inspected. It confirmed both inspections were carried out in line with its Enforcement Policy.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
11. Mr X may disagree, but there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council responded to his concerns to warrant an investigation.
12. In addition, we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider community campaign about something of general concern, but where they have not suffered injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman