Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the seizure of Miss X’s horse by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains her horse was seized, and the impoundments notice left did not look official. She says the police and Council denied involvement, even though the horses were taken at 1am. The Council later confirmed its involvement after the payment deadline. Miss X says the Council gave conflicting explanations about missing notices, earlier reports, and whether it took the wrong horse.

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. 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 says the Council did not try to notify the horse’s owner properly when the horse was tethered on Council-owned land. She says the contractor acting for the Council only left one impoundment notice on site, and no one on the estate saw any other notice(s). Miss X says she wants the chance to pay to get her horse back.
7. The Council explained it attempted to notify the owner by leaving a Notice of Intent and impoundment notice. The horse was not claimed in the specified time. The Council has told Miss X to seek independent legal advice if she wishes to challenge the action it has taken to impound her horse.
8. 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 someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. In this case, we are unlikely to find fault with a Council’s assessment as it appears to have carried this action out in line with published guidance and the Control of Horses Act 2015.
10. I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman