Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council responded to his reports of rats and drainage problems that affected his property. We have agreed with the Council’s previous assessment that there was some fault because it failed to carry out an inspection on one occasion and did not respond to some of Mr X’s complaints properly. To remedy the distress caused by these faults, the Council has already apologised and offered a payment to Mr X. We consider this to be a suitable outcome to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to resolve serious issues that have affected his property:
1. Water damage caused by his neighbours’ interference with a drainage pipe;
2. Waste on neighbouring properties causing a rat infestation; and
3. Anti-social behaviour from his neighbour, a Council tenant.
2. Mr X also complains about corruption within the Council that prevented it from dealing with his complaints properly
3. This has caused Mr X considerable distress and damaged his property. In addition, Mr X’s cat was injured by the rats leading to costly vet bills.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about anti-social behaviour from his neighbour, Mr D. This has been the subject of court action and is a private and civil matter between Mr X and Mr D.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. 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

7. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered the written information he provided. I made written enquiries of the Council. I took account of all the information before reaching a draft decision on the complaint. Both parties were given the opportunity to comment on this before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr X is the owner occupier of a semi-detached property. His adjoining neighbour is Mr D.
9. In October 2018, Mr X complained to his local councillor about an infestation of rats that had been attracted by overgrown gardens and accumulated waste in neighbouring properties. He said his cat had been bitten by rats on several occasions that required costly veterinary treatment. The cat was also bringing rats and mice into his home, causing considerable distress.
10. Council officers conducted a site inspection. In their view, none of the waste identified by Mr X would harbour vermin. This was confirmed to Mr X in writing.
11. The rat problem persisted. In January 2019, Mr X found a rat in his kitchen and reported this to the Council. The Council maintained its position that the gardens in question were in a satisfactory condition, and not overgrown. The Council has accepted it cannot provide evidence this was communicated to Mr X.
12. Mr X complained again in March 2019, but he says no action was taken and the problem persisted.
13. In March 2019, Mr X reported a drainage issue affecting his property. This was caused by Mr D upgrading his driveway.
14. Around this time, Mr X made several complaints about other matters and also complained to his MP.
15. The Council’s stage one complaint response made the following points:

• The Council confirmed there were rats in one of the properties identified by Mr X, but it was likely to be too far away to directly affect him. The Council said pest control was being carried out.
• The missing drain cover was responsibility of the water authority, not the Council. Mr X was told to contact the water authority about the drainage issue.

16. Mr X was dissatisfied by this response. In August 2019, Mr X asked for his complaint to be considered under stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. He also provided more details about his complaint, which included threatening and anti-social behaviour from Mr D.
17. His complaint was acknowledged, and he was informed a response would be provided by 12 September 2019.
18. Having considered the information provided by Mr X, the Council involved its housing department. This was because Mr D was a Council tenant.
19. A housing officer (Officer P) carried out a site visit. His assessment was that Mr D had wanted to link drainage into an existing shared downpipe on Mr X’s property. Mr X had refused his permission for him to do so. Because of this, Mr D had to find alternative drainage, and this had caused a problem affecting Mr X’s property and potentially to the public highway. The Council gave Mr D advice on how to resolve the problem. He was given two months to complete the necessary work.
20. This Council involvement delayed the complaint response. During October 2019, there was further correspondence between the Council and Mr X. The Council asked for more information and Mr X raised new problems.
21. In November 2019, the Council sent its stage 2 response.
22. The Council upheld some of his complaint. I have summarised the areas of complaint that were upheld below:

• The Council failed to carry out a second rat inspection in January 2019.
• The Council did not respond to Mr X’s first complaint about the drain in March 2019.
• Mr X’s second report about drainage in March 2019 was not dealt with either. This was because it was sent to the wrong department as there was confusion over property ownership.
• Mr X’s third report about drainage in April 2019 was not dealt with properly. The Council had asked Mr X for more information but did not provide a correct email address for him to respond to.
• Incorrect information about the previous investigation was given to the MP.
• The drain was not inspected as part of the stage one complaint and it should have been.

23. The Council did not uphold his complaint about the initial rat investigation in October/November 2018.
24. In respect of the drain issue, the Council explained to Mr X that the drainage work was considered to be “development”. As such, both planning enforcement and housing services were overseeing the matter of Mr D’s remedial works. The Council’s surveyor was satisfied there was no evidence of water regress under Mr D's property that would have affected Mr X’s property. He was also satisfied the drainage issues affecting the public highway had bene addressed.
25. Despite his complaint being upheld, Mr X said the problems affecting his property continued. He informed the Council the drainage problem was getting worse. He also told the Council about more rats and mice as well a possible corruption between the police and the Council.
26. In December 2019, Mr X presented himself at the local housing office with a dead rat. He also sent a dead rat through the post to the Chief Executive.
27. In January 2020, the Council carried out another site visit.
28. The Council’s assessment was that the problem came from the sewers that were the responsibility of the local water authority. There are no records of this being notified to Mr X.
29. Mr X made further complaints in January and February 2020, including about Mr D’s anti-social behaviour.
30. In response, the Council confirmed the drainage works has been completed by Mr D to the Council’s satisfaction. Mr X disagreed and told the Council it had not improved and continued to contact the Council.
31. In April 2020, Mr X offered a goodwill gesture of £510 to acknowledge the faults that had been identified in its second stage complaint response. The Council said this was in full and final settlement of the matter. Mr X says he has not accepted this payment, only his postage costs, and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

32. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and does not retake decisions properly made by a Council. The Ombudsman’s role is limited to checking if there was any fault in the way a decision was made. If there was no fault or flaw, the Ombudsman may not, by law, intervene in the judgment reached by the Council. This is the case even where the Ombudsman may have given different weight to a piece of evidence or reached a different decision on the same facts.
33. The Council has accepted there was some fault in the way it responded to Mr X’s reports and complaints. It has apologised and made a financial payment to Mr X. I have not reinvestigated these matters. The payment made is consistent with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies and is an adequate remedy. Any further investigation would not lead to more compensation for Mr X.
34. I have not found any further evidence of fault.
35. While I understand the vermin problem has been distressing to Mr X, the Council has carried out two inspections of the locality, including the areas of concern raised by Mr X. It then made a professional assessment about the source, that being the sewer that was the responsibility of another public authority. This is not a decision the Ombudsman can interfere with for the reason set out in the paragraph 32 above.
36. I am also satisfied there was no further fault in respect of the drainage issue. Once it carried out a site inspection, it advised Mr D what needed to be done to resolve the problem, because of its potential impact on the public highway. Mr D carried out the necessary work to his property. The Council was satisfied the work has been carried out properly. Again, I understand Mr X disagrees with this conclusion. But I have seen no evidence that his property continues to be affected by water. In the absence of any such evidence, I am unable take this part of my investigation any further or question the professional judgement of the Council office that signed off the works carried out by Mr D. In any event, the reason for the enforcement action was to protect damage to the public highway, not to Mr X’s property. If Mr X remains of the view his property has been damaged by the actions of Mr D, this is as private, civil disute between them. It is not a matter for the Ombudsman.
37. I have also considered Mr X’s allegations of corruption within the Council and possible collusion with the police. I have seen no evidence to support these claims and so do not find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

38. There was some fault by the Council in how it responded to Mr X’s complaints about vermin and drainage. The Council has already made an appropriate remedy so there is not further role for the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman