Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed taking action regarding his complaint of a rat infestation in and around his property. Mr X said the Council’s actions caused his family avoidable anxiety and distress and led to him moving address. We found fault by the Council. The Council has agreed to provide Mr X with an apology and a financial remedy in recognition of the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council delayed taking action regarding his complaint of a rat infestation in and around his property. He said the actions taken by the Council failed to resolve the issue. Mr X said the Council’s actions caused his family avoidable anxiety and distress and led to him moving address. He would like the Council to take appropriate action to resolve the infestation and for it to provide a suitable financial remedy.
2. Mr X says the issues relating to the rat infestation date back to 2018.

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. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended)
7. 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

8. I have exercised discretion to investigate the complaint referred to in paragraph one dating back to January 2023; this is when the Council’s most recent consideration of Mr X’s report of rats started.
9. I have not investigated the complaint dating back to 2018 because the complaint is late, and I consider there are no good reasons to investigate beyond January 2023.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered all comments before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949

12. The Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949, section 2 (1) says, “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.
13. The Council’s website refers to the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949. It says the legislation provides the Council with powers to require the owner or occupier of land infested by rats or mice to take any steps that are deemed to be necessary to deal with the infestation.
14. The Council says if it receives a complaint, an officer will investigate the alleged offending premises and may visit neighbouring properties to assess the following:
• any food source that maybe encouraging vermin
• any form of harbourage (nesting) for vermin

What happened

15. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
16. Mr X is a homeowner who lived at Property A with his family. His next-door neighbour was a Council tenant who lived at Property B. Property A and Property B are adjoining. Mr X said he first noticed a problem with rats in and around his property in 2018.
17. Mr X said he contacted the Council’s anti-social behaviour team about the rats in 2022. He said his neighbour was feeding the birds in their garden and this was attracting the rats.
18. In January 2023, Mr X contacted the Council’s housing service about his concerns regarding his neighbour feeding the birds. Mr X acknowledged the Council had contacted a third-party pest control company (Company Z), to attend the site but said this was only a temporary fix.
19. The Council visited Mr X’s neighbour shortly after to discuss their feeding of the birds.
20. In March 2023, Mr X contacted the Council again. He acknowledged the actions of Company Z and said he had noticed a reduction in rat activity. He said as part of its intervention, Company Z stated it would also need to inspect some nearby garages. Mr X asked the Council for this action to go ahead.
21. In July 2023, Mr X asked the Council to provide an update on the progress of the inspection of the garages. He said he continued to see a lot of rats in the area.
22. The Council began its survey of the garages in August 2023.
23. Mr X contacted the Council again in October 2023 to say the problem with the rats had persisted. He said despite the temporary measures taken by the Council, rats were once again living in the loft space of his house.

Mr X’s complaint

24. Mr X complained to the Council on 19 November 2023. Mr X said he was dissatisfied with the Council’s lack of action and said his neighbour was continuing to feed the birds; Mr X said this continued to attract the rats.
25. The Council responded on 28 December 2023. The Council said it had informed Mr X about the treatment it had instructed Company Z to take. It said its previous decision not to interfere with the rights of Mr X’s neighbour regarding their feeding of the birds was correct at the time. However, the Council said it had reviewed the neighbour’s conduct and concluded that this action should cease. The Council said in addition to this, bait needed to be placed, and the burrows or routes used by the rats needed to be blocked off.
26. Mr X escalated his complaint on 23 February 2024. He said he considered the Council’s actions had failed to produce any meaningful results. Mr X said he and his family had to live with the issue of the rats and that this had taken a significant emotional and psychological toll. Mr X said the rat infestation had also caused damage to his roof lining, loft insulation and electrical wiring.
27. In March 2024, Mr X raised a service request with the Council’s Environmental Health (EH) team. Shortly after, on 15 March 2024, an EH practitioner visited Property A and Property B. The EH practitioner identified potential rat entrance points at the front of Property B; they also identified Property B as the source of the rats into Mr X’s adjoining home.
28. The Council provided its stage two complaint response on 22 March 2024. It said that during 2022 and 2023, it had undertaken several interventions. The Council said however, when there had been a change of officers, the new officer did not open a new case as they should have. As a result, the Council said the interventions had either not been completed or had not resolved the issue. The Council referred to the EH practitioner’s visit, the potential rat access points at the front of Property B, and that the rats were accessing Mr X’s home from his neighbour’s property. The Council apologised to Mr X for not continuing to address the problem. It also offered a financial remedy in recognition of the distress caused and provided a link to its insurance company regarding Mr X’s claim for damages.
29. Mr X moved out of Property A in September 2024. Mr X said he is still the owner of the property but felt he and his family had to move out due to the stress regarding the rats.
30. Mr X complained to the Council again on 14 October 2024. The Council responded on 28 October 2024; it said it would not consider the complaint further because there was no evidence the outcome would change after further investigation.
31. Mr X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and brought his complaint to us.

What happened next

32. The Council’s EH practitioner visited Property B again in November 2024. They identified holes in the soil at the front of the property and a potential break in the wall/foundation below ground level that required repairing. The EH practitioner considered this was the likely entry point for the rats getting into Mr X’s property, through the cavity wall or the roof.
33. The Council arranged for repairs to be carried out to investigate and repair any entry point found below the external wall of the property. This work was completed in late January 2025.

Analysis

34. The Council acknowledged in its complaint response of 28 December 2023 that the rat issue was persisting. This was despite the previous intervention of Company Z. The Council stated that any burrows or routes at the address needed to be blocked off.
35. The evidence shows an EH practitioner did not visit the property until 15 March 2024. At this time, the EH practitioner identified potential entry points to the front of Property B and considered this was the source of ingress to Mr X’s home. The Council said it would arrange for Company Z to inspect and treat the property.
36. Company Z visited in early April 2024 and placed bait and traps. I have seen no record to indicate Company Z took steps to further inspect the potential ingress point at the front of the property at this time.
37. The EH practitioner visited again in November 2024 following Mr X’s further report that the rat issue remained unresolved. The EH practitioner identified a break in the wall/foundation below the ground level as the potential entry point for the rats and requested repair works to be carried out. These repair works were completed in January 2025.
38. As a result, the evidence shows the Council took 13 months to block off the rats’ route into the property. This timeframe is from 28 December 2023 (the date of the complaint response which identified this action was required) to 31 January 2025 (the date the works were completed). The evidence therefore shows delay in the Council’s actions to resolve the issue. This is fault.
39. In its response to my enquiries, the Council said there was no delay to treatment, and that once it was established that it was a new complaint about a new recurrence, appropriate actions were taken in a timely manner.
40. I acknowledge the Council’s comments. However, I consider Mr X’s repeated reports of rat infestations were not new complaints, but were continued reports of an ongoing issue. This is supported by the Council’s correspondence between its housing department, asset management service, third-party housing provider, EH service and Company Z. This acknowledged the matter was ongoing and that Mr X had a ‘longstanding complaint’.
41. The Council says, ‘opportunities to follow up on this case were missed, and we apologise for this’. I acknowledge these comments and consider it is positive the Council has itself identified missed opportunities during the period of the complaint. I also acknowledge the Council apologised to Mr X in its stage two complaint response and offered a financial remedy.
42. Mr X says he rejected the Council’s offer of a financial remedy and has filed a claim with its insurers regarding any liability to damages to his property. It is not our role to assess economic losses or award compensation for damages. However, we may recommend symbolic financial remedies to recognise any injustice caused by any fault identified.
43. Mr X said the injustice has been stress and anxiety, causing sleepless nights. He said he and his family felt like they needed to move address because of the stress incurred. Mr X also said their concerns about the presence of rats in the garden, and the resulting potential health implications, meant they would not let their child play outside. I acknowledge Mr X’s comments and consider the fault identified led to avoidable distress and frustration to Mr X and his family.

Back to top

Action

44. To address the injustice identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of this final decision:
1. Provide an apology to Mr X for the fault identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings;
2. Make a symbolic payment of £500 to Mr X in recognition of the distress and frustration caused. This amount is in line with our published guidance on remedies, and
3. Remind staff to keep reports of rat and mice infestations under review in order to avoid delays in the actions taken by the Council as part of its duties under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949.
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

46. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above actions to remedy the injustice. I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman