Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a visit from an environmental enforcement officer. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainants, Mr & Mrs X, complain about a visit from an environmental enforcement officer. They say his actions were intimidatory and predatory.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

(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 complainants. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council received a complaint about dog fouling regarding the complainants’ dog. An officer visited Mr & Mrs X to discuss the complaint.
5. Mr & Mrs X complained to the Council that the officer parked in front of their drive, refused to identify himself, put his hand through the letter box and looked through the window. Mr & Mrs X described his actions as predatory and intimidatory.
6. In response the Council said it had decided to take an informal approach by way of an officer visiting Mr & Mrs X rather than sending a letter which would have been more formal. The Council said the officer was wearing his badge and said he was from the Council. The officer denied the complainants had requested his name.
7. The Council said the officer parked in front of the drive because he knew he was visiting about a dog and there was a possibility he might have to leave quickly. The Council noted the visit was short and the officer would have moved the car if needed.
8. The Council explained the officer thought someone was at home and, after waiting on the doorstep for a couple of minutes, called through the letterbox and looked through a window; he subsequently spoke to Mr X and informed him of the complaint. Mr X denied the allegation and said some people in the area do not like his dog.
9. The Council denied the officer’s conduct was predatory or intimidatory. It said there was no evidence of dog fouling, and it was not taking any further action.
10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council received a report of dog fouling which it discussed with the complainants. It was not wrong for the Council to contact Mr & Mrs X in response to the report. The enforcement policy says the Council aims to take a proportionate approach and can take informal action as the first step. The Council’s actions reflect the policy.
11. I appreciate Mr & Mrs X are unhappy with the way the officer conducted the visit but there is insufficient evidence of injustice to require an investigation. Nothing happened as a result of the visit and I have not seen any suggestion that the car prevented anyone using the drive. And, in relation, to the complaint that the officer did not identify himself, the Council confirmed he is a council officer, so Mr & Mrs X know they were not visited by an unauthorised person.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman