The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue a Community Protection Notice warning as there is not enough evidence of fault in the way it was made.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council issued him with a Community Protection Notice (CPN) warning after his dog caused harm to another animal. Mr X says he was not responsible, and this warning has caused him distress.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council issued Mr X with a CPN warning after it said Mr X’s dog attacked another animal causing harm.
The Council wrote to Mr X and explained why it was necessary to issue this warning. It said it was to prevent the likelihood of other incidents taking place. It considered Mr X’s concerns and chose to issue a warning rather than a CPN, and I am satisfied with the actions the Council took in deciding to do so.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to issue a Community Protection Notice warning as there is not enough evidence of fault in the way it was made.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman