The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to reduce the maximum number of dogs allowed at Ms X’s dog day care premises. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Ms X complains the Council has reduced the maximum dog capacity at her dog day care premises from 40 dogs per day to 26. She says previous licensing inspections had granted a maximum of 40 dogs a day based on inaccurate floor space measurements from the previous applicant which the Council should have checked.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. 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, including its response to the complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X bought a dog day care business from the previous owner based on being allowed to house 40 dogs on the premises which the licence at the time allowed for.
For applications submitted in previous years by the former owner, the Council had relied on dog space measurements provided by the applicant and allowed 40 dogs. However, the figures provided by the applicant were incorrect and when the new licensing grant application was received from Ms X when she took over the business, the Council measured the space and found only 26 dogs were permitted.
In responding to Ms X’s complaint about the matter, the Council explained how previous applications had been dealt with and that under the original legislation there had been no requirement for a dedicated space for each dog. It said it does not routinely measure premises except when it receives a grant application as it did from Ms X.
While Ms X’s disappointment at the reduction in dog capacity is understandable, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation. At the time the original application was made by the former owner the legislation did not require a measurement of dog space and when subsequent inspections took place officers relied upon measurements provided by the former owner. The change in the number of dogs allowed was the result of the previous owner’s incorrect measurements and I do not consider the Council can reasonably be held accountable to Ms X for this.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman