Summary: Ms C complains that the Council delayed in arranging a follow up pest control appointment after she complained about a previous visit. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there was fault which led to a delay in arranging the follow up visit. The Council has agreed to offer a financial remedy to Ms C.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms C, complains that the Council failed to arrange a follow up appointment after a pest control officer laid poison to deal with a rodent infestation outside her property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint; and
• reviewed and considered information received from the Council; and
• spoke with Ms C about her complaint.
5. I also sent a draft version of this decision to both parties and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council has a free service for the treatment of rodents in domestic properties. Pest control officers will attend a property to lay bait and arrange a follow up appointment within 14 days to ensure the success of the treatment.
7. In October 2018, Ms C contacted the Council and reported that she had an infestation of rodents outside her property.
8. A Council pest control officer attended the property and laid bait inside a rodent burrow. Later that day Ms C contacted the Council and said that her dog had eaten the bait. A pest control supervisor returned to the property that day and moved the bait.
9. Ms C subsequently complained to the Council about the original position of the bait and said that this had led to her dog becoming sick after eating it.
10. Ms C contacted the Council two weeks later and asked for a follow up visit but was told that no further visits would be arranged, because the matter was subject to a complaint,
11. Ms C again requested a follow up visit in November. After receiving no response, she complained to the Council’s about the matter.
12. In December, the Council’s pest control manager attended Ms C’s property and laid bait, a subsequent follow up visit was arranged, and the bait was removed. The pest control manager also inspected Ms C’s loft, where she had previously laid her own bait. It found evidence that rodents had eaten the poison and removed the bait.
13. Upon contacting the Council, it told the Ombudsman that it should not have declined Ms C’s request for a follow up appointment on the basis that she had complained. It said that it was carrying out a review of its business rules to ensure staff have the correct information to them.

Analysis

14. Ms C complains that the Council failed to arrange a follow up appointment to assess the success of pest control treatment it had previously laid.
15. The Council incorrectly refused to arrange a follow up visit on the basis that Ms C had complained. This is fault. The Council should not stop providing a service on the basis that someone has raised a complaint.
16. The Council have since arranged two pest control visits to Ms C’s property and have taken steps to ensure the events that led to the delay do not occur again.
17. However, Ms C went to some time and trouble to raise the complaint, which led the Council to arrange a follow up visit. For this I consider it to be reasonable for the Council to offer Ms C a financial remedy.
18. The Ombudsman’s remedy guidance sets out the principals in assessing remedy payments for time and trouble. IT explains that we would usually recommend a Council offers between £100 - £300, depending on the degree of difficulty experienced by a complainant or any factors which make them vulnerable.
19. Having considered these factors, I have concluded that a remedy payment should be offered at the lower end of the scale, at £100, due to the Council eventually arranging a follow up appointment after approximately 2 months.

Agreed action

20. The Council has agreed to offer Ms C £100, within 1 month of my final decision, to remedy the time and trouble she went to pursuing this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed my investigation on the basis that there was fault causing an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman