Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to introduce licensing for professional dog walkers to operate on its public parks and green spaces. There is insufficient evidence of fault in its decision making process to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about how the Council introduced licensing for dog walkers to use its parks and green spaces. She says the licensing conditions mean she cannot afford to keep her business running and says the process to apply for a license is complicated. She wants the Council to allow six dogs per walker and to allow professional dog walkers to dispose of dog waste in its public bins. She also wants the Council to simplify its application process.

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 (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X complained that the Council introduced a license for professional dog walkers and other businesses to operate on its parks and green spaces. The Council said it conducted a public consultation in 2018 to 2019 about how it could increase income and the public were mostly supportive of introducing licensing fees. As part of my enquiries, I have seen the consultation information and the Council’s decision making process. I am satisfied it properly considered the public’s comments and concerns when it decided to introduce the new rules.
7. The Council explained the scheme was paused because of the COVID-19 pandemic. It sought legal advice when it resumed its proposals in 2023 and confirmed it did not need to undertake further consultation with the public.
8. The Council paused the scheme when it received feedback from operators in its area in 2025. It revised its license fees and offered discounts to small businesses on low incomes. It also considered the impact of the costs on small businesses in its Equality Impact Assessment.
9. I am satisfied the Council properly consulted the public and considered the impact on businesses before it implemented the scheme. We are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision making and therefore cannot criticise the outcome.
10. The Council imposed a license condition to limit the number of dogs a professional dog walker can take at any one time to four. Miss X believes the Council should allow six dogs per walker because insurance companies allow that.
11. The Council explained it made this decision because of concerns raised by the public about safety. It said it took advice from Dog’s Trust and the RSPCA. Both the RSPCA and Dogs Trust advise sticking to a limit of four dogs per handler so the walker can safely manage leads, respond to unexpected reactions, and maintain full attention. We are unlikely to find fault in how the Council decided to limit the number of dogs per walker and we will therefore not investigate.
12. Miss X further complained the Council would not allow professional dog walkers to dispose of dog waste in the public bins. The Council said it would not allow disposal of commercial waste into its public bins and business owners should arrange their own waste disposal. This is a decision the Council is entitled to make and we are unlikely to find fault with its approach to commercial waste.
13. Miss X complained the license application process was complicated and asked the Council to support her in completing it. The Council signposted Miss X to appropriate organisations to help her complete the forms, sent her a printed version through the post along with the Code of Conduct and Terms and Conditions. I am satisfied with how the Council handled this part of the complaint and we are unlikely to find fault in its approach.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman