Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council decided to close an enforcement case against a neighbouring property. She said the Council misinterpreted the Ombudsman’s recommendations and did not account for all relevant factors in its decision-making. We have not found the Council acted with fault in its decision-making. We cannot therefore question the decision the Council made. The Council has confirmed it would consider any new reports or evidence it receives.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to close an enforcement case concerning a neighbouring property. Mrs X said the Council did not take this decision correctly, misinterpreting the Ombudsman’s recommendations.
2. Mrs X said the Council made an incorrect decision, causing uncertainty. She said the circumstances had not changed and the Council should pursue a different course of action.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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

How I considered this complaint

7. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered information she provided.
8. I considered the Council’s responses to Mrs X and information it provided.
9. Both Mrs X and the Council were able to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Prevention of Damage by Pests

10. The Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 requires councils to keep their land and districts free from rats and mice, so far as is reasonably practicable.
11. If a council believes steps should be taken for the destruction of rats or mice on any land, it may serve the landowner or occupier with a notice. The landowner will then need to take reasonable steps, within a specified period, to rid the land of rats and mice.

Merits and professional judgment

12. 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 an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

What I found

Key events

13. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “analysis” section of this decision statement.
14. In late 2023, the Ombudsman investigated a complaint made by Mrs X. Mrs X complained the Council failed to take action against her neighbour for having an overgrown garden and allowing rubbish to gather, leading to a rodent infestation.
15. We issued our decision statement in February 2024. Summarised, we found that:
1. The Council delayed dealing with the matter, allowing it to drift.
2. The Council had served a notice on Mrs X’s neighbour in April 2023, requiring action to resolve the problem. Mrs X’s neighbour had not complied with the notice, but the Council had not addressed this.
16. We found the Council’s’ faults caused Mrs X uncertainty and distress. To remedy the injustice to Mrs X, we recommended the Council should apologise to Mrs X and pay a symbolic financial remedy. We also recommended the Council inspect the property again and:
1. Decide whether it was satisfied the notice had been complied with.
2. If the notice had not been complied with, consider whether it would clear the garden itself.
3. If the notice was not complied with, but the Council was otherwise satisfied, it should write to Mrs X to confirm this and explain its decision.
17. The Council accepted our recommendations. It inspected the neighbouring property on 20 March 2024. On 21 March 2024, the Council wrote to Mrs X with its findings. Summarised:
1. The Council said it had found no evidence of a rat infestation.
2. Mrs X’s neighbour had told the Council they intended to further clear the garden in the coming months.
3. The Council referred to the Ombudsman’s recommendations. It said it had decided it would take no further action, despite the terms of the notice not being fully complied with. The Council said it would be closing the complaint.
18. In April 2024, Mrs X complained to the Council about its decision and how it had taken it. Summarised, Mrs X’s main concerns were:
1. After a lengthy delay, the Council had prioritised acting quickly over resolving the problem. The neighbouring garden was still overgrown and full of refuse. Mrs X said the Council had provided no evidence to support its claim there was no infestation. Mrs X questioned how the Council inspected and its findings. She said there had been recent reports of rodents in the garden.
2. The Council had changed its position on what resolution it would accept from Mrs X’s neighbour. Mrs X had understood the Council would seek full compliance with its notice, but it was now prepared to leave the garden overgrown. The Council had closed the case, which prevented it from helping Mrs X’s neighbour any further. She felt the Council should clear the garden on their neighbour’s behalf.
19. The Council inspected the neighbouring property again. It said it found no evidence of rodents.
20. In May 2024, the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint. Summarised:
1. The Council said when it first inspected the neighbouring property, it could not inspect the rear garden due to the collected refuse. However, it had been able to complete a full inspection in March 2024, before deciding to close the case. It said it had inspected again in April 2024, following Mrs X’s complaint. It provided some detail about how it inspected, saying it found no evidence of a rodent infestation. It said it believed closing the case was the correct decision.
2. The Council said it had made no observations of the rear door area of the neighbouring property. While it had noted items placed against the dividing fence, it said any resultant damage would be a civil matter.
3. The Council said it had closed the case in a manner compliant with the Ombudsman’s recommendations. It said these recommendations were explicit and meant the Council had no discretion to continue to work with Mrs X’s neighbour. The Council said it had therefore closed the case after carefully considering its options.
21. Mrs X brought the matter back to the Ombudsman, making several observations about the Council’s response. Summarised:
1. Mrs X said the garden had not been cleared and there remained several possible nesting areas for rodents. There were still areas, such as the rear door area, which the Council could not inspect, due to the accumulated refuse. Mrs X said the Council could draw no conclusions, because it had not completed a full inspection. Mrs X said her tenants had reported more rodents.
2. Mrs X said the Ombudsman’s recommendations did not prevent the Council from continuing to work with their neighbour, or from considering other remedies. Mrs X believed the Council had not acted impartially in its decision-making.

Analysis

22. Our role is not to replace the Council’s judgement with our own, or provide a right of appeal against a decision taken properly. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how the Council made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome. If we do find fault, we may take a view on whether the outcome would have been different, on the balance of probabilities, but for the fault occurring.
23. The Ombudsman recommended different actions the Council could take to remedy the identified injustice. These recommendations reflected the Council’s discretion to account for relevant considerations and decide whether to pursue enforcement action, or to identify another proportionate course of action. The Ombudsman cannot compel the Council to pursue enforcement action against Mrs X’s neighbour. Properly made, this decision is for the Council to take.
24. The Council told Mrs X it had complied with the Ombudsman’s recommendations. It closed the case on this basis. I have therefore considered whether the Council can show it had regard for relevant information, guidance and good practice in reaching its position.
25. The Council’s position was that:
1. It had completed a full inspection of Mrs X’s neighbour’s garden. It said it identified no evidence of rodents and would take no further action against Mrs X’s neighbour, despite the neighbour not fully complying with the terms of the notice. It said it would not compel Mrs X’s neighbour to utilise the services of a professional pest control company.
2. It had closed the case in a manner consistent with the Ombudsman’s recommendations. The Council told Mrs X the Ombudsman’s recommendations were explicit and the Council had no discretion to continue working with Mrs X’s neighbour to mitigate her concerns. It said it had carefully considered its options before closing the case.
26. We were initially concerned the Council had based its conclusions on a partial and restricted inspection of the site only. We were also concerned the Council had closed the case on a mistaken understanding of the Ombudsman’s recommendations, meaning it would wrongly decline to consider new reports or evidence that may need it to act.
27. In response to these concerns, the Council told the Ombudsman:
1. While recognising there were areas it could not access, its officers had significant professional experience and were satisfied the issue had been addressed. The Council had not identified any visible indicators of an infestation – such as runs, holes, droppings or chewed items – in the areas that could be accessed.
2. The Council said the legislation under which it had served a notice required action to be taken “for the destruction of mice and rats”. The Council asserted there was no basis for it to take further formal action, pursuant to the destruction of rodents, without evidence of a current infestation. The neighbour’s actions appeared to have sufficiently addressed the problem.
3. When making its decision, the Council accounted for legal advice it received in a similar case about whether it could or should clear the garden itself. Based on this advice, it concluded it would not do so here, due to the liabilities it would assume and the costs it may have to impose on other parties.
4. The Council said it carried out further visits to Mrs X’s neighbour in April and June 2024, after the complaint was closed. It said it had provided advice and guidance on reducing the likelihood of a recurrence. It said it had also reminded Mrs X’s neighbour that the Council had a duty to investigate if there were further complaints. The Council told the Ombudsman it would consider any new reports it received and refuted any suggestion it would not act in future if required.
28. I have carefully considered the Council’s comments. The Council’s explanation provides assurance it accounted for some restrictions on its inspections when reaching its decision. It considered the wording of the relevant legislation in its decision-making. It also considered whether it could or should clear the garden itself and decided it would not, based on its interpretation of professional advice received. I fully recognise Mrs X’s reservations about the Council’s decision, or its interpretation of the relevant legislation. Nonetheless, it is for the Council to reach a professional judgment on the presence of an infestation and on the action needed to address it, accounting for all relevant circumstances. Having regard for the Council’s explanation, I am satisfied this is the case.
29. The Ombudsman’s primary concern was that the Council would not consider any new reports or evidence, based on a misunderstanding of our previous recommendations. The Council told the Ombudsman this is not the case. It confirmed it would consider any new evidence or reports it receives, and would not close its mind to taking further action in future.
30. Given the Council’s explanation for its decision-making, and its commitment to considering any new reports or evidence, I have not found the Council acted with fault.
31. The Council identified no evidence of rodents in the inspections it completed. Mr and Mrs X also told the Ombudsman there had been no recent rodent activity, though they remained concerned about a recurrence. Given the Council’s assurances, it is open to Mr and Mrs X to report any new activity to the Council and for the Council to consider whether it needs to act. Mr and Mrs X retain the right to make a further complaint, if there are future concerns.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman