Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to properly consult before putting a dog exclusion order in place. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to consult with interested parties before putting a dog exclusion order in place. She says that as a result, dog owners have nowhere to exercise their dogs.

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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Councils can draw up orders excluding dogs from specific areas under the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) legislation and guidance. These orders must be reviewed and renewed every three years. In doing so, councils must consult with the local police, landowners and town and parish councils. Councils may consult with other interested parties if they wish but it is not mandatory.
6. Cornwall Council has a dog exclusion order covering many of its parks. This was due to expire in October 2023. Therefore, earlier in the year, the Council wrote to the statutory consultees, including town and parish councils, for their views.
7. Ms X is unhappy the dog exclusion order includes the parks in her town. She responded to the consultation, on behalf of the dog group she belongs to, opposing the order, suggesting alternatives and requesting the Council consult with the Kennel Club. Her Town Council also responded but it was in support of the Council’s proposed order and suggested increasing its scope to cover other open spaces in the town.
8. The report to the relevant Council committee detailed the consultation responses. These were considered before the committee approved the order.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council followed the correct procedure prior to renewing the dog exclusion order. It had no statutory duty to consult with organisations such as the Kennel Club and so it was not fault when it chose not to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and moreover, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman