Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mr R’s complaint about it failing to take prompt effective action on his reports of rats from its ground floor property. It delayed dealing with his complaint and did not carry out officer recommendations following a site inspection. The agreed action remedies the avoidable injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr R complains the Council failed to take prompt and effective action to resolve a rat infestation in a neighbouring ground floor flat one of its tenants rents: as a result, rats entered the cavity walls of his first floor flat, damaged its interior and his personal belongings, which caused him a great deal of stress, frustration, and anxiety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)

Back to top

Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949

4. Section 2 (1) of the Act states:

“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.”

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered all the information Mr R sent, including the notes I made of our telephone conversation, video evidence showing rats in his property, and the Council’s response to my comments, a copy of which I sent him. I did not send a complete copy as part of it contains third party information which needs to remain confidential. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr R and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr R owns his first-floor flat on a long lease. His neighbour rents the flat below from the Council. Mr R has video evidence of rats entering his property. He argued they come from the ground floor flat through the cavity walls.
7. Despite making reports to the Council about the problem, Mr R believes it failed to take effective action to resolve the problem over the last 12 months. The continuing problem caused him tremendous stress, lost him his job, led to personal property damage inside his flat, and prevented him living in it for 5 months as he cannot have his young son stay there.
8. These are the key dates:

2019:

• July: A pest control inspection record shows officers put down rat poison behind Mr R’s toilet in his bathroom;
• August: At the start of the month, the Council said it first had a report from Mr R about rats from the neighbour’s flat. His complaint referred to the Council failing to act on reports made within the last 12 months. He says the reports were about the antisocial behaviour of his neighbour or, problems with the repair and maintenance of the ground floor flat. I have not seen evidence of any other reports. His complaint referred to an officer previously visiting to put rat poison down who also told Mr R there were several loose bricks and holes in the neighbour’s flat;

The Council said it made arrangements to visit after receiving the complaint;

Mr R provided copies of inspection notes made by the Council’s pest control team which show poison was put down behind the toilet basin in Mr R’s flat;

• September: Mr R chased the Council for a response to his complaint;
• October: The complaint was allocated to an officer. A Council officer inspected the ground floor flat. The officer found: no evidence of ongoing rodent presence other than samples of mice droppings within a kitchen base unit; ‘clear evidence of ongoing/previous rodent presence, holes within plasterboard, door linings etc’; a number of holes at 1st floor level which may be freshly cut which need grilles fitted or sealing; the rear garden of both flats were in a condition that would allow vermin to live or encourage it to live there. The officer suggested a cut back/tidy up of both areas;

The officer recommended a course of baiting, the blocking of holes and repair works, both internal and external.

• November: The Council sent Mr R its stage 3 response under its complaints procedure. This explained it reviewed his complaint and an inspection of the neighbour’s flat found it in reasonable condition. The email said an inspection of the neighbour’s garden at the end of October showed its condition was ‘reasonable’.

9. In response to my enquiries, the Council also said several work orders were issued and completed but, some were not because of a lack of access.

Analysis

10. I make the following findings on Mr R’s complaint:
1. In my initial draft decision, I noted the Council failed to provide evidence of it making arrangements to visit the site following Mr R’s complaint in August as claimed. In response, the Council sent an extract of an entry on its computer system showing a visit on 13 September but, officers were unable to gain access.
2. I am satisfied there was delay with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. I say this having taken account of the Council’s complaints procedure which is as follows:

• Stage 1: The aim is to deal with the complaint straight away, but it accepts this may not always be possible. In such cases, it will move to the next stage.

In my initial draft decision, I noted the Council failed to provide evidence of it dealing with the complaint straight away. I also noted Mr R chased the Council for a response a month after sending his complaint. In its response to that draft, the Council pointed out this was because the complaint was not dealt with at stage 1 as it went straight to stage 2 as it needed investigating;

While I appreciate the Council wanted to investigate the issues he raised, I consider it should have provided a stage 1 response to his complaint, even if only partial. This is because he raised other issues in his original complaint apart from rats, some of which it had prior knowledge. This would have prevented him contacting the Council about 3 weeks later unhappy with its brief, several lined response in an undated email.

By 22 September, he was complaining about no contact from the contract officer as promised in the Council’s email. Nor had he received its final response within 20 working days, which was also referred to in the email. If the Council was not intending to deal with his complaint under stage 1 either in whole or in part, it needed to have told him and given reasons. It failed to do so. This is fault.

The email it sent also failed to explain it was dealing with his complaint under stage 2 and why it had not looked at it at stage 1. This is fault.

• Stage 2: This states the department complained about will investigate the complaint and respond within 15 working days.

I have not seen a full copy of the original stage 2 email from the Council to Mr R. The one I have seen has no date. It told him an officer would contact him to arrange an inspection.

In response to my initial draft decision, the Council explained it would not mention an investigation at this point because it was necessary to tell him officers needed to do the inspection. The Council went on to explain there is sometimes more than one response at this stage because it still tries to resolve the complaint. The evidence shows an officer was to be allocated to deal with his complaint in October. This was about 2 months after his initial complaint. This is fault; and

• Stage 3: If a complainant remains unhappy after the stage 2 decision, they can ask for a review if they can explain why it is incorrect. The Council will arrange for an independent officer to look at the complaint and respond to it within 20 working days.

The Council again did not provide a complete copy of its stage 3 response. I have seen its response dated 5 November. The email referred to having reviewed his complaint which it received on 8 October. I have not seen the complaint he sent on this date and assume it was a request for it to progress to the next stage. The Council’s email was sent on the 20th working day from his request.

3. The initial evidence showed an officer only visited the neighbour’s flat in October, about 2 months after his first complaint. In response to my draft decision, the Council provided evidence of an unsuccessful visit the month before. Mr R complained to the Council at the start of August. Even taking in to account the unsuccessful attempted visit, I remain satisfied the Council took too long to get out and inspect its property. This is fault.
4. The officer made recommendations. There is no evidence the Council acted to ensure the works recommended were done and completed.
5. In response to my initial finding of the Council failing to monitor the situation to see whether the poisoning it carried out worked, it explained it does not usually do so. This is because it provides this as a free service. The process starts by tenants or occupiers contacting it for an online appointment, which leads to a pest officer visiting to survey and lay bait, where required. The tenants/owners are then asked to wait at least 14 days for the bait to work. If problems continue after that time, they are asked to contact the Council again to book another visit.

While this may be its usual practice, as it owned the property and rented it to a tenant, I consider the Council had an obligation to go beyond the service it would normally provide. This is because it was, after all, one of its properties which affected Mr R’s neighbouring flat. I consider it should have taken steps to monitor the situation to ensure rats were no longer a problem for Mr R. This is fault.

6. In its stage 3 response, sent in November, the Council said the inspection found the neighbour’s flat in reasonable condition. Unless there was another inspection I am unaware of, the Council failed to mention the recommended action the officer noted following a site visit or, the action it would take in response. I remain satisfied this response was brief and inaccurate. This is fault.
7. In my initial draft decision, I noted the Council said there were access problems to the neighbouring flat but, failed to support what it claimed with evidence. In its response, the Council provided a copy of an internal email highlighting why contractors might have problems gaining access. Another internal email shows an officer was aware of the problems with gaining access to the neighbour’s flat in October 2019. I consider the Council had ample time before the Covid restrictions in March 2020, to alert contractors to the potential access problem, and arrange for the carrying out of the recommended action and any other necessary repairs. I consider the delay amounts to fault.
6. I am satisfied the fault caused Mr R avoidable injustice. The failures caused him distress (stress and anxiety as the problem continues to affect the enjoyment of his flat and personal belongings). He spent time and effort pursuing the Council to take prompt and effective action.

Agreed action

12. I considered our guidance on remedies.
13. The Council will, within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint, carry out the following:
1. Send a written apology to Mr R for the failure to: inspect the neighbouring property promptly; complete the actions recommended by the officer; monitor whether treatment was effective or not; respond properly to his complaint;
2. Pay £675 to Mr R for the avoidable injustice, including distress, its actions caused. I calculated this based on our guidance for remedies involving statutory nuisance. I appreciate this is not directly comparable but, decided it reasonable to use the figure of £75 a month as a basis for injustice suffered. I multiplied this by 9 months (from July 2019 to March 2020 when lockdown was introduced);
3. Carry out a review to look at why there were failures with its handling of Mr R’s complaint and take steps to ensure lessons learned are communicated to relevant officers;
4. Contact the neighbour to make arrangements to carry out the recommended action suggested by the officer who inspected his flat;
5. Ensure the officer’s recommended actions are completed within 8 weeks of the final decision on this complaint; and
6. Monitor the site for a further period of 4 weeks following completion of the officer’s recommended action to see whether the rat problem is resolved.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman found fault on Mr R’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman