Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action against Mr X’s neighbour who feeds wild birds in his garden.  This is because an investigation is unlikely to find fault and it is unlikely we could add to the response provided by the Council’s investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to take enforcement action against his neighbour who, he believes, excessively feeds wild birds which attracts pigeons. Mr X says the pigeons leave droppings in his garden and the feed attracts rats. He says he has provided enough evidence to the Council to support his complaint and it has caused him stress and time, in following the Council’s complaints procedure.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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)
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault,
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s neighbour feeds wild birds in his garden.
6. Mr X complained to the Council about the feeding, which he considers is excessive, with troughs of feed left on the ground.
7. The Council visited the location and assessed the feeding was not excessive, and there was no statutory nuisance against which it could take enforcement action.
8. Mr X was unhappy with the decision as he had sent evidence to the Council supporting his complaint of excessive feeding, including evidence of rodents in the area. The Council considered this information and maintained there was no statutory nuisance.
9. While I understand Mr X is disappointed with the Council’s decision, we cannot review the merits of that decision and I have seen no evidence to suggest there has been fault by the Council in the way it dealt with the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault and it is unlikely an investigation could add to the response already provided via the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman