Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a pest control treatment because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, says the Council did not carry out a pest control treatment correctly. She wants the Council to provide further treatments and/or a refund. Mrs X says the Council has shown poor customer service.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I read the terms and conditions for pest control treatments and the treatment notes. I considered comments Mrs X made in reply to draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Pest control terms and conditions

4. The treatment of vermin is for a maximum of the three visits. Bait is laid at the first visit and refreshed at the second visit if needed. The bait is removed on the final visit. The treatment does not include proofing work although advice may be given. The treatment does not include an unlimited number of visits until the problem is resolved. The Council uses certified pest control officers.

What happened

5. Pest control visited Mrs X three times in February and March. The notes say the technician thought the rats had entered the wall cavity through the boiler extractor fan. The records refer to a broken sewage cover and a hole by the drain. The technician laid bait inside and outside the house. The officer recorded there was no sign of droppings in the kitchen.
6. During the second visit the technician saw no evidence of rodent activity. The technician left the traps in place. The technician advised Mrs X to carry out repairs.
7. The technician removed the bait on the third visit. Some of the bait had been eaten but the box was clear. The records state the proofing repairs had not been done. Mrs X says she had to wait to do repairs because she could not seal the hole until the bait had been removed.
8. Mrs X complained to the Council in September and said the work had not been done properly. In response, the Council explained it had carried out three visits in accordance with its terms and conditions. It briefly explained the work it had done and that it was not responsible for proofing work. It said it does not guarantee the treatment will work and does not offer unlimited visits. It said Mrs X could book another treatment but she would have to pay for it.
9. Mrs X is dissatisfied with the response. She says the technician ignored that the rats were in the wall. She has done proofing repairs which have trapped the rats in the house. Mrs X says she had received poor customer service and would have received a better response from a private company. Mrs X wants a refund and for the Council to improve the service.

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The rules say a treatment includes three visits. The Council carried out three visits and took appropriate action by assessing the likely entry point, laying bait, and giving advice. The notes show the technician was aware the rats may be in the wall space and he only placed bait at one location inside the house because there were no droppings in the kitchen.
11. Mrs X is critical of the service and thinks the officers should have acted differently. But, it is not my role to criticise the actions of professional pest controllers and there is nothing in their actions which suggests a need for an investigation or a refund. The Council does not provide unlimited visits and, even if a treatment is unsuccessful, this is not an example of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman