Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her report of dog mess. This is because the matter complained about has not caused Miss X any significant personal injustice which is so serious that it warrants an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains about the Council’s response to her report of dog mess in three locations near her property.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

6. Miss X complained to the Council that it failed to remove dog mess she reported in three locations outside her property and that it closed her request before the mess was removed. She also asked it to put up additional dog waste stickers as there is only one in place and it does not act as a deterrent for dog owners.
7. The Council said its street cleansing team had visited following Miss X’s request and it removed the dog mess. It said one of the reports of dog mess was believed to be melted plastic rather than dog mess. It was unable to remove it during the visit. It closed the request because it was found not to be dog mess. The Council said more than one dog waste sticker had been placed at the location but it would pass Miss X’s request to the service to consider. It said the area is currently monitored at least twice per week.
8. Miss X says the hard substance was subsequently washed away by rain and it did not appear to be plastic.
9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because, whilst I acknowledge Miss X remains dissatisfied with the Council’s response to her complaint, the matter has not caused her any significant personal injustice which is so serious that it warrants an investigation. We do not investigate every complaint we receive. We have limited public resources and we must focus these on investigating those complaints where a person has suffered a significant personal injustice as a result of fault or failures by a body in our jurisdiction.
10. Miss X also complained to us about matters not included in her complaint to the Council. She complained about the Council’s handling of litter, broken glass, debris and fly tipping near her home. I have not considered those matters here because, as they did not form part of her complaint to the Council, it has not yet had the opportunity to consider these matters via its full complaints procedure. We can only investigate complaints about matters the Council has had the opportunity to consider via its complaints procedure. It remains open to Miss X to raise a complaint to the Council about these matters.

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the matter has not caused her any significant personal injustice which is serious enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman