Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused by rodents to the complainant’s home. This is because it is a matter that needs to be determined in court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, says work carried out by the Council led to rodents damaging her home. Ms X wants compensation of at least £15,000.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. Claims about damage to property or belongings need to be determined by insurers or the courts.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and the decision made by the Council’s insurer. I considered our Assessment Code and comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council carried out a flood prevention project. The earth moving work was largely completed by June 2021 although Ms X says it was not completed until November.
7. In November Ms X’s home was damaged by rodents. Ms X says the damage is worth between £10,000 to £15,000. Ms X says the flood project dispersed the rodents causing them to enter her home and cause damage.
8. Ms X made a claim on the Council’s insurance. The insurer instructed a solicitor who rejected the claim. The solicitor said Ms X had not demonstrated the Council was responsible for the damage. The solicitor said rodent activity would have been expected during or soon after the work – not some months later. It said pest control had visited Ms X’s home and found, on the balance of probabilities, that a single rat had entered the house and become trapped. The solicitor noted there had not been an increase in reports of rodents from Ms X’s neighbours. The Council denied liability and said Ms X would need to take legal action. The Council said Ms X would need to prove the Council had been negligent in its management of the scheme and this had caused the damage to her home.
9. Ms X disputes the decision and many of the findings reached by the solicitor. She thinks it was unnecessary for the Council to have used a solicitor and says it affected her mental health. She is unhappy with the way the Council responded.
10. I will not start an investigation because complaints about damage to property need to be considered by insurers and the courts. The courts have the expertise to judge whether the Council was negligent in the way it carried out the flood work and whether the Council is responsible for the damage caused to Ms X’s home. And, if the court decided the Council had been negligent, it could asses the amount the Council should pay in damages. We cannot make such decisions. Ms X could take legal action as she disputes the Council’s rejection of her claim and, as she is seeking substantial compensation, it is not disproportionate that she should do so. Ms X may wish to take legal advice and should be aware there are deadlines in starting legal action.
11. Ms X is unhappy with the way the Council responded but I have not seen anything to suggest we need to start an investigation. We do not investigate complaint handling when we are not investigating the main issue. In addition, it was for the Council to decide whether to instruct a solicitor to assess Mrs X’s claim.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint because it is a matter that needs to be determined in court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman