The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council decided not to prosecute a dog owner. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to prosecute a dog owner for having a dangerous dog. He said the dog was dangerous, after it attacked his own pet, resulting in its death. He said the Council’s actions had caused him distress. He wants the Council to reconsider its decision.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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) 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (the Act) prohibits ownership of certain types of dogs. Under this legislation, Local Authorities can also prosecute dog owners if they allow any breed of dog to be ‘dangerously out of control in a public place’.
It its complaint response, the Council confirmed the dog that attacked Mr X’s dog was not a dangerous dog as defined in the Act. It said also said there was not enough evidence to suggest the other dog had been ‘dangerously out of control’. It said it made that decision based on information from the owner, Mr X and an assessment of the dog. It said there was no history of aggressive behaviour and the owner demonstrated control of the dog. The Council considered use of its anti-social powers, but decided these were not appropriate, as the dog had been rehomed.
Although Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response, we will not investigate this complaint. The Council considered all available evidence and applied the law. It set out reasons for its decision. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it made its decision to justify our involvement.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman