Summary: We will not investigate this complaint alleging anti-social behaviour and nuisance arising from dogs barking persistently and creating an odour. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of reports alleging anti-social behaviour and nuisance arising from neighbouring dogs. She says the Council has only issued a warning to the dog owners and she wants enforcement action taken against the dog owners.
2. Miss X says she is suffering from distress, and her mental health has been adversely affected.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 the complainant and the Council’s responses to Miss X’s complaints. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X reports a significant impact on her mental health, sleep and ability to work from home due to persistent barking from dogs. She says she cannot use the washing line in her garden due to odour from dog waste next door.
7. The dog owner is a tenant of the Council while Miss X is not. The Council has investigated Miss X’s reports through its tenancy enforcement and also anti-social behaviour/nuisance processes. Where the Council has considered tenancy enforcement action against the dog owner this lies outside of our remit. This is because we have no remit to consider the Council’s actions as a registered social housing provider.
8. Turning to the Council’s considerations under its anti-social behaviour and nuisance powers, the Council does not agree with Miss X that her evidence meets the threshold for action. It has taken this decision after considering the evidence, monitoring and reviewing the case together with site visits.
9. In its complaints investigation, the Council found it delayed responding to some of Miss X’s communications.
10. We will not investigate. We are unlikely to find sufficient evidence of fault. The Council’s decisions have been taken proportionally after considering and investigating Miss X’s concerns.
11. 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 a complainant disagrees with the outcome of a decision.
12. In terms of the Council delaying in responding to Miss X’s communications, this has been addressed by the Council in its complaint’s responses. I do not see evidence of a significant injustice arising from this issue on its own to warrant an investigation.
13. It is open to Miss X to take Private Nuisance Action, under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, directly to the magistrates court.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman