Reigate & Banstead Borough Council (19 015 506)

Category : Environment and regulation > Other

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 20 Oct 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mrs X says the Council is at fault in how it has considered and investigated her reports of vermin entering her home from her neighbour’s property. The Ombudsman has not found evidence of fault in how the Council responded to Mrs X’s reports although he does consider it was inappropriate to visit Mrs X’s home with her neighbour without prior agreement. He recommended the Council reiterates its apology to Mrs X for doing so. The Council agreed.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs X, complains about the Council’s handling of her reports of vermin entering her home from a neighbouring property. Mrs X says this has caused her and her family considerable stress and impacted their health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. As part of my investigation I discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered information she provided. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its response and information it provided. I set out my initial thoughts on the complaint in a draft decision and considered Mrs X’s and the Council’s comments in response.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation and council policy.

The Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949

  1. The Act says it is the owner or occupier’s responsibility to keep their land free from mice and rats. The Act gives local authorities powers to require landowners or occupiers to do this. It can serve a notice on the relevant person. If the notice is not complied with it can carry out works in default or instigate prosecution proceedings.

Reigate and Banstead Borough Council’s Procedure for Enforcement Under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949

  1. This explains how the Council will take any necessary enforcement action under the 1949 Act.

Reigate and Banstead Borough Council’s Procedure for Dealing with Filthy and Verminous Properties

  1. This explains that initial reports should be investigated by an Environment Health Officer (EHO). It says that visits might be better undertaken with a person who has the confidence of the owner/occupier. It says that cases should try to be resolved via liaison with friends, family, Social Services and other agencies. Formal actions should only be taken as a last resort and where the owner/occupier does not engage with the service.

Background

  1. Mrs X is a housing association tenant. Her neighbour, Mrs Y, is the owner/occupier of her home. Mrs Y is a hoarder and her property and garden are unkempt.
  2. In June 2018 Mrs X says she contacted the Council about concerns regarding the condition of Mrs Y’s home. The Council says it has no record of this.
  3. Mrs X says she told the Council’s Environmental Health team in December 2018 she had found a mouse in her loft and thought it may have come from Mrs Y’s home. The Council says the file entry for the call says Mrs X told it she was concerned about the condition of Mrs Y’s home, notably the overgrown garden and crumbling garden wall. No recording of the call is available.
  4. Mrs X has provided evidence she told her housing association about mice in December 2018 and that she also asked other neighbours if they had any similar problems.
  5. In January 2019 a Council EHO, Officer Q, inspected the outside of Mrs Y’s home and took photos showing part of the garden wall had collapsed. Officer Q wrote to Mrs X in February advising her it could not take action over the wall. It also suggested she contact Social Services if she was concerned about Mrs Y’s welfare. The Council closed the case.
  6. In April Mrs X contacted the Council again. The Council’s file entry says she raised concerns about the condition of Mrs Y’s property and that it was encouraging vermin.
  7. Officer Q contacted Mrs X and spoke with her in May. As a result, Officer Q contacted Mrs Y and asked to meet her at her home.
  8. Meanwhile Mrs X told the Council that she had heard scurrying from within the cavity wall near her front door and in her bedroom ceiling. She later advised the Council her husband had found mice droppings in their loft but nothing in the bait traps they had laid.
  9. On 10 June Office Q visited Mrs Y’s home as arranged. She found evidence of hoarding by Mrs Y but not of items that were contaminated or decaying. She also found the garden was overgrown. Officer Q said she would refer Mrs Y to a hoarding support group for assistance with clearing her home and garden. Mrs Y was told that she would need to arrange clearing of both her home and garden to allow for further inspection to see if vermin were present.
  10. During the visit Officer Q took Mrs Y to Mrs X’s home to discuss the problem and to see if Mrs X could help Mrs Y. The visit was not arranged with Mrs X in advance. Mrs X felt uncomfortable during the visit especially as Mrs Y appeared upset.
  11. Following the visit Mrs Y told Officer Q she had engaged with a hoarding support group and would be receiving help to clear her home. She had also arranged for a gardener to clear the garden.
  12. In late July the Council visited Mrs Y’s home again and found her garden had been substantially cleared. No obvious entry points for vermin were found but some droppings were noticed. Mrs Y said she would be engaging the assistance of pest control. She was also continuing to work with hoarding support services and reported that her larder had been cleared and some evidence of vermin had been found. The Council provided an extra wheelie bin to help Mrs Y continue clearing her home.
  13. Meanwhile Mrs X continued to report scratching noises throughout July and August. In September her housing association arranged for pest control to visit her home. The visit found evidence of vermin in the loft and cavity wall of her home. Mrs X told the Council she was very distressed and had not been sleeping.
  14. Pest control visits at Mrs Y’s home in September and October found evidence of vermin but the source was most likely other properties or a drain. The Council advised Mrs X of the findings but could not provide a copy of the report for data protection reasons.
  15. Mrs X submitted a Stage One complaint to the Council. She was unhappy with the lack of action taken and said the Council had not acted impartially.
  16. The Council did not uphold Mrs X’s complaint and said that it had followed its procedures. Mrs X was dissatisfied with the response and escalated her complaint to the second stage of the Council’s procedure.
  17. In December Mrs X reported noises from the loft again. In response the Council asked Mrs Y to instruct pest control again. Mrs Y did so and her pest controller suggested that CCTV be used. The Council told Mrs X’s housing association this and it told the Council it had commissioned a drain survey.
  18. The Council replied to Mrs X’s second stage complaint. It said it had not received any reports of vermin from Mrs X until April that year as these would have been noted in the file. It said it had followed procedures by seeking to resolve matters with Mrs Y informally. It refuted it had not acted impartially or been condescending to Mrs X.
  19. On 24 December Mrs X told the Council that pest control had found no defects in her section of the drain. She also told the Council that her husband had found a hole in the soffit of Mrs Y’s home when he had been clearing the gutters.
  20. The Council advised Mrs Y about the hole and asked her to arrange for her pest controller to visit again. The visit concluded the hole was made by a squirrel and found holes in other neighbouring properties. Bait was laid at Mrs Y’s home and further visit scheduled. As this found no evidence of bait take up, the hole was sealed.
  21. The Council closed the case in March 2020.
  22. Later that month Mrs X reported hearing noises from her loft again. The Council advised there were no grounds for further action to be taken by Mrs Y or any other neighbour as squirrels were not covered under The Prevention of Damage by Pests Act.
  23. In April Mrs X told the Council the noise she heard was from starlings. The Council advised it would not take any action as birds were not covered under The Prevention of Damage by Pests Acts.
  24. The Council closed the case.
  25. In July Mrs X advised that she had heard banging from her loft and supplied a video demonstrating this.

Analysis

Reports of 2018

  1. There is a clear difference of opinion between the Council and Mrs X as to the nature of her report to it in December 2018 which I cannot resolve. But, while I have no reason to doubt Mrs X referred to vermin, this would only be significant if action taken then could have prevented the vermin problem. As Mrs Y’s home was not identified as the source, I have no reason to conclude this would have been the case. Further, the problem appeared to abate between Christmas 2018 and April 2019 as Mrs X made no further reports of vermin. I also note that Mrs X did not challenge the contents of the Council’s letter of February 2019.
  2. It should also be noted that the Council could not carry out pest control at Mrs X’s home and that it was open to her to arrange this herself.

Report of April 2019.

  1. I have not found any evidence of fault by the Council in its handling of Mrs X’s report of April 2019. It acted in accordance with its policy by informally working with Mrs Y to ascertain if her home was the source of the vermin. Its policy says it should only instigate formal action if Mrs Y did not engage with it, which she clearly did.
  2. I appreciate that Mrs X would have liked matters to have been resolved quicker and that dealing with the vermin problem was distressing for her. Nevertheless, I do not consider the Council was responsible for any delay in acting on her report. It regularly pursued resolution with Mrs Y and liaised with Mrs X’s housing association.
  3. I note that Mrs X has raised concern that Officer X visited her home with Mrs Y without telling her first. Although the Council’s policy refers to enlisting the help of family and friends when dealing with a person whose home may be a hazard, in the circumstances I do not consider the Council’s actions were appropriate. It was Mrs X who raised concerns about Mrs Y and the Council should have sought her prior agreement to the visit. I appreciate the visit must have been very awkward for both Mrs X and Mrs Y and may have strained their relationship further.
  4. Mrs X has raised questions about the quality of the pest control undertaken on behalf of Mrs Y. However, the Council did not arrange this and was not responsible for the pest controller’s actions.
  5. I understand Mrs X may be unhappy the Council has not taken any action regarding squirrels and starlings; I do not find this to be fault. They are not pests that are covered by The Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949.

Agreed action

  1. I have found evidence of fault by the Council in taking Mrs Y to Mrs X’s home without her agreeing to this beforehand. I recommended the Council reiterates its apology to Mrs X and amends its policy to reflect that agreement to visits should be sought in advance. The Council agreed.
  2. I also have concerns about the accuracy of the Council’s recording of Mrs X’s December 2018 report. The Council should remind staff of the importance of accurately recording the details of calls. The Council has agreed to do so.
  3. I am aware that Mrs X has raised concerns about deterioration at Mrs Y’s home including the garden which is overgrown again. She is understandably worried this might encourage vermin. I recommended the Council visit Mrs Y’s home to ascertain if there has been any deterioration in its condition that might give rise to concern. The Council agreed. If no such concerns are found, then I do not see there would be grounds for the Council to be involved further.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I have ended my consideration of this complaint as the Council has agreed to act on my recommendations which I consider address the injustice caused to Mrs X by the fault I found.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings