Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainant’s report of an attack by a dog. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains that the Council has failed to respond reasonably to his report of an attack by a dog.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says he was attacked by a dog while walking on a public footpath. He complains that the Council’s response to his report of the incident, and its decision to take no action, were flawed.
6. Mr X says the Council insisted that it was acceptable for him to be attacked on a public footpath. He also contends that its response amounts to gatekeeping, and that the Council failed to liaise with the police and failed to consider the full range of its powers to respond to antisocial behaviour. He argues that the Council operates a blanket policy which effectively precludes action in response to such attacks.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The complaint correspondence he and the Council have provided does not support his allegations. The Council has not said the attack was acceptable, as he contends. Rather, the correspondence indicates that it has taken a proportionate and defensible approach to the issue. There is no evidence of the application of a blanket policy.
8. Turning to the specific allegations Mr X has made, his key contention is that the Council has failed to consider the use of the powers available to deal with antisocial behaviour. He says the Council insists that three reports of the same matter must be made before it will consider action. He argues that this amounts to gatekeeping,
9. What the Council has said in this regard is that three reports would be required to trigger an Antisocial Behaviour Case Review, which is a body for which the police is the lead agency. This does not amount to gatekeeping on the Council’s part.
10. Rather than failing to consider the use of its range of powers, the Council specifically set those powers out and explained why it does not regard it as appropriate to take further action in the circumstances of the case. Mr X disagrees with that decision, but that does not mean it amounts to fault.
11. The Council’s final response to the complaint properly sets out the factors it has considered and why it has made the decision to take no further action. That is a matter for the professional judgment of the Council’s officers. There is no evidence of fault in the way that judgement was exercised. Without such evidence, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the decision, or intervene to substitute an alternative view.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman