Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing an abatement notice and carrying out works in default which involve da fixed penalty notice. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council taking action under an abatement notice for rodent infestation in his rented property without him having received the notice. He says he lost any right of appeal or the opportunity to do the work to the property himself and incurred a fixed penalty as a result.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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 complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X is the landlord of rented property which the Council served an abatement notice on in January 2025. He says he did not receive the notice which required repairs to prevent rodent infestation and was issued under the environmental Protection Act 1990. Mr X says he was not aware of the notice requirements or the appeal rights mentioned in the notice.
6. The Council says it issued the notice and has shown me copies of the notice and the certificate of service. Under the provisions of the Interpretation Act 1978 and the local Government Act 1972 when a notice is served by hand or through the post it is deemed served and failure to receive it is not a defence against further action by the Council.
7. The Council says it issued a subsequent notice which included a proposed date for the commencement of works in default and Mr X did not respond to this either. He did reply to a third letter which informed him of a fixed penalty notice being issued.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. The Council issued the abatement notice, schedule of proposed works and fixed penalty according to the requirements of the legislation. There is no evidence of fault which we would consider investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing an abatement notice and carrying out works in default which involve da fixed penalty notice. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman