Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s pest control service. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Ms B, complains about the Council pest control service she paid for in April 2021 to tackle a mouse problem. Ms B says the treatment was not effective because the mice have recently returned. Ms B also says the Council refused to write to her neighbour about the state of their garden, which is the cause of the problem, despite initially telling her it would do this. Ms B would like the Council to: provide effective treatment at no cost; refund the money she has paid on ineffective treatments; take action against her neighbour; pay her compensation; and, take disciplinary action against officers involved.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms B and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
5. Ms B had the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this statement. I have considered her comments.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In response to Ms B’s complaint, the Council said:
• The pest control fee is for officers to visit a property, provide advice, and carry out appropriate treatment.
• The Council provided this service for Ms B in April 2021.
• The treatment was effective for eight to ten weeks.
• The treatment does not guarantee pests will not return to a property after a period of time.
• As a gesture of goodwill, the pest control team has offered Ms B a further visit.
• A pest control officer viewed Ms B’s neighbour’s garden from a window and there was no evidence the problem was caused by an issue at her neighbour’s property.
7. An investigation is unlikely to find the Council was at fault for the service it has provided Ms B.
8. The Council has explained why it did not send a letter to Ms B’s neighbour. It is unlikely we would question the officer’s professional judgement that there was not a strong causal link between the condition of the neighbouring property and the mouse problem. Ms B says she has written evidence that pest control officers had identified the neighbouring property as a contributory factor. But, I note this document is dated June 2019. So, because of the passage of time, we are unlikely to criticise the pest control officer’s judgement made in April 2021.
9. Ms B has provided several reasons why she considers the treatment of April 2021 was not effective, including that officers did not use the correct type of poison. But, the information indicates the treatment provided by the Council was effective for a period. It would be difficult for the Council to guarantee the problem would not return. The Council has also acted reasonably by offering Ms B a further visit to provide advice.
10. Ms B has raised further issues including that: an officer left cheese in one of the bedrooms; the Council did not tell her that amateur treatment kits were offered to residents during the COVID-19 pandemic; and, an officer wrongly advised her that glue traps were now banned, which resulted in her paying for glue traps which she could not afford.
11. These specific areas of complaint do not appear to have been included in Mrs B’s complaint to the Council. So, we do not have the Council’s comments in response. I have considered whether we should explore these issues further. But, I find an investigation is not justified. This is because the information does not suggest Ms B has suffered a significant injustice because of the alleged fault that would justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman