Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate and deal with a rat infestation on his land, which he said was entering from Council land. The Council was not at fault. It carried out an investigation in line with the relevant legislation, but concluded it was unable to find the source of the rats. As the landowner, it is Mr X’s responsibility to put measures in place to control the rats entering his land or property.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate and deal with a rat infestation on his land. Mr X said the rats were entering his land from Council land. Mr X said the Council’s failings caused him frustration, avoidable financial loss and time and trouble.

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. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered the information he provided.
6. I considered the Council’s response to my enquiry letter.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered the comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s procedure for pest complaints

8. The Council does not have a bespoke policy on responding to pest complaints. Instead it uses its powers under The Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949.
9. The Act says:

“It shall be the duty of every local authority to take such steps as may be necessary to secure so far as practicable that their district is kept free from rats and mice, and in particular—

1. from time to time to carry out such inspections as may be necessary for the purpose aforesaid;
2. to destroy rats and mice on land of which they are the occupier and otherwise to keep such land so far as practicable free from rats and mice;
3. to enforce the duties of owners and occupiers of land under the following provisions of this Part of this Act, and to carry out such operations as are authorised by those provisions.”

10. The Council responds to complaints about pests within 48 hours of receipt. It may send out a ‘good neighbour’ letter which includes advice and best practice about dealing with a pest infestation. A Council officer may then visit the complainant to identify what the concerns and issues are and to try and establish the source of the infestation. The Council said it will also conduct surveys and visits to specifically identified properties and locations if necessary.

What happened

11. Mr X contacted the Council in June 2018 reporting rats on his land which he believed were entering from Council land and a neighbour’s property. In response to the report, the Council visited properties, including an alleged source on Mr X’s street and delivered its ‘good neighbour’ letter to them. It also visited a nearby take-away premises to investigate its bin storage area.
12. Mr X wrote to the Council again in July 2018. He said there were still rats entering his land. The Council wrote back to Mr X. It said it had concluded the source of the rats was from a nearby car park and had reported it to the outdoors services department to resolve. The Council told Mr X it had sent ‘good neighbour’ letters to his neighbours.
13. Mr X wrote to the Council on several occasions about the rats and the actions the Council was taking to get rid of them. The Council responded on each occasion. The Council’s responses show it carried out a baiting programme in a nearby car park and surveyed nearby commercial premises. It removed waste bins from the car park and visited several nearby food establishments. The Council also visited Mr X’s home and surveyed his garden with an ultra-violet torch.
14. The Council concluded the rats visiting Mr X and some of his neighbours were likely attributed to the immediate area which was open space with farmland, wild fruit plants nearby, an apple tree in one of Mr X’s neighbours garden and Mr X’s bird feeding station. With regard to Mr X, the Council proposed he refrain from feeding birds and commissioned a pest control specialist to bait the garden and rat proof it.
15. Mr X wrote to the Council again, unhappy with the Council’s response to the issue. He said he had fitted steel netting around his garden and had already refrained from feeding birds for the last three months. He said all his bird feeders had spinners to stop rats getting into them, and little to no food had fallen to the ground. Mr X said he had spent £200 implementing the Council’s suggestions but he still had a rat problem. Mr X asked several questions about the Council’s investigation including which specific commercial premises it had visited and whether it had investigated the sewer system for breaches.
16. The Council responded again. It said it had carried out an extensive survey of the immediate area and found one of the likely sources to be Mr X’s garden due to the bird feeding station. It said Mr X’s garden had burrowed holes and at least two rat runs leading to his side gate. It also found burrowed holes outside his fence. It said Mr X should expect to see the occasional rat in his garden if he continued to feed birds. The Council said, as the owner of the property it was Mr X’s responsibility to keep it in reasonable condition to prevent any infestation.
17. Mr X formally complained to the Council. He said the Council had not properly acknowledged the rat infestation and had told him to take measures which cost him £200 and did not work. Mr X said he had now paid an extra £150 plus £25 per month going forward and wanted the Council to reimburse him. Mr X said the Council had not properly followed rat urine trails or investigated the sewers. Mr X wanted a list of all the commercial premises the Council visited. He said he had a meeting with two councilors about the matter who both agreed a nearby sewer could be the source.
18. The Council responded and said it had investigated the matter thoroughly. It had surveyed the local area including commercial premises, car parks, and where it found rubbish it spoke to the owners of the premises. It did not identify pest activity or infestation. The Council said it provided Mr X with advice about his bird feeder and about proofing measures at his home. It said the control of pests at his property remained his responsibility to address and his alone. It said other than addressing some fallen fruit at a neighbouring property there were no further actions for it to take. It said was unable to find the source of the rats entering Mr X’s garden.
19. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response and asked to escalate his complaint.
20. The Council reviewed Mr X’s complaint. It said it had spoken with the two councilors who did not recall making statements about a sewer being the source of the rats. The two councilors acknowledged the area had at times suffered from rats but said in this case there was nothing further the Council could do. It said its checks of commercial premises were satisfactory. It said was unable to find the source of the rats and had no further actions to take. The Council said it remained Mr X’s responsibility to control pests within his own property.
21. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

22. Mr X has complained that the Council failed to take appropriate measures to identify the source of the rats. The law says the Council must take steps so far as practicable to keep the district free from rats. The records show the Council responded quickly to Mr X’s concerns and carried out site visits to his property and his neighbour’s properties and posted the ‘good neighbour’ letters. The Council also carried out community surveys, checks of 21 local commercial premises and undertook baiting in a nearby car park. I cannot take a view on what was said in the meeting between Mr X and the councilors about checking a local sewer because I was not there. However, the Council said it liaised with the water company and then checked inspection chambers and manhole covers in the immediate area near Mr X’s property. It found them fitted correctly. The Council carried out a thorough investigation into Mr X’s rat infestation in line with the relevant legislation. The Council was not at fault.
23. Mr X said the Council failed to provide him with all the information about its investigation including a list of all the commercial premises it surveyed. The records show it visited 21 premises and found them all to be satisfactory. The Council declined to provide Mr X with a list of all specific premises because of data protection. It is open for Mr X to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) who is best placed to consider the matter.
24. Mr X complained he spent £200 on the Council’s suggestions to keep the rats off his property which did not work. Those were suggestions by the Council which included good practice measures such as stopping feeding birds and sealing his boundary. The evidence shows those suggestions did not work, however, it was Mr X’s choice whether to implement those suggestions. The responsibility to control pests on private property rests with the owner. Therefore, the Council is not at fault for refusing to recompense Mr X.
25. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We cannot criticise a Council’s decision unless there was fault in the way it made the decision. The Council carried out an investigation into Mr X’s complaint about rats in line with legislation. It concluded it was unable to find the source of the rats entering Mr X’s land. It remains Mr X’s responsibility to control the rats on his land or property. There was no administrative fault in the Council’s actions. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman