Summary: Mr D says the Council delayed responding to reports about vermin and failed to take action. I have found evidence of fault by the Council because it failed to communicate the outcome of its investigation to Mr D. It handled the rest of the case correctly. Because of that error I have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation. The Council agrees to apologise to Mr D.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council delayed responding to his reports about vermin coming into his garden from a neighbouring site in 2023.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

What I have and have not investigated

4. Mr D referred to issues with a high hedge and a garden structure at a neighbouring site. I have not investigated those points because they have already been considered as part of an earlier complaint to the Council and the Ombudsman. If there are new issues that have arisen about those matters Mr D would need to make a new complaint to the Council before coming to the Ombudsman.
5. I have considered how the Council investigated Mr D’s reports about vermin in 2023 and whether the correct process was followed. I have not looked at any 2024 reports Mr D may have made to the Council. If he feels there are current problems he would need to make a fresh complaint to the Council in the first instance.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have spoken to Mr D and considered the information he provided. I asked the Council questions and examined its response which included the case records.
7. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their comments. As a result, I issued a revised draft decision which was, again, shared with Mr D and the Council and their comments have been taken into account.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. On 6 July 2023 Mr D called the Council asking for someone to contact him about rats entering his garden. He also emailed the Council on 10 July stating he had called the previous week. He sent photographs of rats in his garden which he felt were caused by the actions of his neighbour. He asked for an urgent investigation. That same day the case was referred to the Council’s Community Safety Enforcement Team (CSE Team). On 13 July Mr D lodged a formal complaint with the Council. He had not been contacted about the vermin issue. On 14 July the case was allocated to a Community Safety Enforcement Officer (CSE Officer). On 18 July the CSE Officer emailed Mr D stating they would visit that day and update him afterwards. The CSE Officer and a colleague then visited the site Mr D alleged was causing the source of the vermin. The Officers did not find evidence of vermin or activity that would encourage vermin. On 31 July the Council responded to Mr D’s complaint and said the case was being handled in a timely manner.
9. On 25 August the CSE Officers visited the neighbouring site again to check if there was any additional activity by rats. They did not find signs of vermin activity or anything that would encourage vermin at the site. They also spoke to some other residents in the area who were not aware of a vermin issue. There is no record of the CSE Officer notifying Mr D about their findings. The Council says the investigation was closed and an automatic email sent to Mr D notifying him the case had ended. I have not seen a copy of that email.
10. On 29 September Mr D emailed the CSE Officer. Rats were still active in his garden, and he wanted an update on the investigation. No-one had visited his property to carry out an inspection. He asked the Council to consider this as a formal complaint. Following further contact from Mr D the Council allocated the case to an Environmental Health Officer (EH Officer). The EH Officer called Mr D on 3 October, Mr D had been laying bait and reiterated his belief the issue lay with the neighbouring site. On 11 October the EH Officer visited Mr D and discussed the case. He explained the Council could only take action if the neighbouring site was identified as the source of the infestation. The EH Officer explained he would visit the site with a Pest Control Officer.
11. On 20 October the Council sent Mr D its complaint response. It said CSE Officers had visited the locality to identify sources of harbourage and engaged with neighbours. It said CSE Officers had not visited Mr D because they had accepted the information provided by him at the start of the process. The EH Officer visited the area on 8 November. The two Officers noted “very little found” at the neighbouring site. There was no evidence of burrows or rat activity. There were some small gaps in hedging that could potentially allow access for rats between sites, but they only witnessed a squirrel using the gap during the visit. The EH Officer emailed Mr D later that day about the visit and said he would write to other neighbours about the issue. On 28 November the EH Officer sent letters to six neighbouring homes about the rats. He asked residents to carry out pest control measures if they had seen vermin. He also advised he would be carrying out site visits. On 18 December the EH Officer visited five properties and a further site was viewed on 3 January 2024. The next day he emailed Mr D about the outcome of the investigation. No evidence of vermin activity had been found at the sites and the case was closed because there was no further action the Council could take.

What should have happened

12. When the Council receives a report from a resident about external vermin activity it is allocated to the Community Safety Enforcement Team. A CSE Officer will investigate by contacting the complainant for information. They will visit the alleged source of the vermin activity to check for evidence. The Officer can carry out a follow up inspection to see if any additional evidence is present. If there is no evidence of the source of the vermin the Council can close the case and notify the complainant.
13. If a resident tells the Council the vermin issue is still happening the Council has discretion to refer the case to an EH Officer who may visit the site along with a Pest Control Officer. As with the process above for the CSE Officer, the EH Officer looks for evidence of vermin activity and their burrows. The Council cannot take any enforcement action if there is no evidence that a resident is the source of the problem, and it should close the case.

Was there fault by the Council

14. Mr D told me he felt the Council delayed responding to his reports about vermin. The evidence shows me the Council acted promptly and carried out a site visit within eight days of the case being referred to the relevant service area. Overall, the case was progressed at a reasonable pace, and I do not see there is fault in this matter or that the complaint response to him was incorrect.
15. There is fault by the Council in its failure to explain to Mr D why the CSE Team investigation ended. The CSE Officer had promised Mr D in July they would update him after site visits had been carried out: that did not happen. Instead, the Council says an automatic email was sent at the end of August to close the case. I have not seen a copy of that email, but it would not be sufficient notification to a complainant about why an investigation had ended. The Council should have written to Mr D setting out how it had considered his reports of rats and how a decision had been reached. Mr D did not receive that and had to chase up the Council and complain to get more information. I note the October complaint reply by the Council also failed to pick up the error by the CSE Officer. However, the rest of the complaint response adequately addressed the key points.
16. Mr D disputes the investigation carried out by the Council and its findings. I am satisfied the Council carried out an appropriate level of investigation. Officers visited the neighbouring site three times and viewed other sites to try and establish the source of the rat activity as shown in the contemporaneous records made by the Council. I do not see there was anything further the Council could reasonably be expected to do. The Council had no evidence of a neighbouring site being the source of the vermin and so could not take enforcement action. I appreciate Mr D does not agree with the decision taken by the Council, but the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong. That applies to this case. Mr D does not accept the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action, but it was entitled to reach that view.

Injustice and remedy

17. The Council’s failure to explain to Mr D about its investigation and decision making meant he had to chase up Officers for information.
18. To remedy that injustice, the Council has agreed to offer its apologies to Mr D and will reiterate to relevant Officers about the importance of fully communicating an investigation decision. This should be done within four weeks of the investigation ending. The Council should provide us with a copy of its apology letter to Mr D.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have completed the investigation and upheld the complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman