Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to meet its legal duty to ensure, as far as practicable, its land was free from rats and mice. We found the Council at fault. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and take further action.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has failed to meet its legal duty to ensure, as far as practicable, its land is free from rats and mice. Mr X says the Council has failed to both properly maintain land it owns near his property leading to perfect habitat conditions for rats or to destroy the rats on its land. Mr X also complains about poor complaint handling.
2. Mr X says because of the Council’s fault, rats enter his garden and cause damage and he suffers avoidable anxiety and costs.

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. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949

7. Section 2 (1) of the Act states:

“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—

• from time to time to carry out such inspections as may be necessary for the purpose aforesaid;
• 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;
• 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.”

Pest control measures

8. The Campaign for Responsible Rodenticide Use (CRRU) in the UK promotes the safe and responsible use of rodenticides to minimise harm to wildlife and other non-target animals. The CRRU Code of Best Practice outlines how rodenticides should be used, emphasising a planned approach, proper bait placement and regular monitoring. It also stresses the importance of removing food and shelter sources for rodents and avoiding the unnecessary use of rodenticides.

Principles of Good Administrative Practice

9. The LGSCO’s Principles of Good Administrative Practice says we expect councils to act fairly and proportionately and to be open and accountable. This includes:
• explaining clearly the rationale for decisions and recording them;
• stating the criteria for decision-making and giving reasons; and
• keeping proper and appropriate records.

What happened

10. The following is a summary of key events. It does not include everything that happened.
11. Mr X emailed the Council in September 2023 about rats coming into his garden and those of his neighbours from Council owned conservation land. Mr X explained there were three or four holes which kept appearing under his garden fence which bordered the area of land. Mr X had laid traps and was treating the situation in his garden but sought action by the Council to resolve the issue. Mr X noted the area of land was only being cut back once a year which he said was not enough as it allowed an ideal environment for rats. Mr X also noted the overgrown area was causing a nuisance from debris blowing into his garden and potential damage from tree saplings growing along the boundary.
12. The Council responded to Mr X in October to say the area next to his property had been scheduled to be cut back. The Council noted this type of scrubland was not likely to encourage rats and it was more likely they were attracted by food or scraps left out and they may also appear after periods of heavy rain from drains. The Council confirmed that a single cut each year was in line with previous site management.
13. Mr X contacted the Council again in July 2024 and asked it to monitor rat activity from its land, install bait stations and cut back the area before it became overgrown.
14. The Council’s initial response at the beginning of August stated it would cut back the area in the autumn after the bird nesting season had ended. Mr X responded to say this did not address his concerns about rats entering his property and noted there were no ground nesting birds on the site.
15. The Council arranged a pest control visit on 12 August and found no evidence of rats. The report from this visit recorded that Mr X had said rats were entering his garden from behind his garden fence but that it was not possible to access the area as it was overgrown. The pest control service emailed the Council the following day to suggest cutting back the overgrowth to stop rats harbouring. Mr X also contacted the Council following this visit to say the advice had been to place bait stations along the boundary and to regularly monitor these (as the pest control contractor had not been able to do so as the area was so overgrown).
16. There was further correspondence with Mr X during August. The Council confirmed the management of the area of land was an annual cut in the autumn and works were not completed during the period March to August due to the impact on wildlife. The Council said it would consider additional clearance in future if necessary and proportionate but there was no recommendation from its pest control service for bait stations. However, the Council partly upheld Mr X’s complaint as the service response had not addressed the rat issue.
17. Mr X also contacted the Council in September to say the area of land had been cut back but the brambles and tree saplings along his boundary had not been removed as previously. Mr X also noted two mounds of vegetation had been left. The Council responded towards the end of September to say the contractor had been asked to return to the site to remove the vegetation along the boundary but that the mounds had been left for their wildlife benefits.
18. The Council arranged a further pest control visit during October. The Council has not provided a report from this visit. The Council has provided undated photographs and a follow up email from the contractor from December. This email says a nearby pond was noted as possibly attracting rats and the woodland area may harbour rats but no rats were seen during the visit.
19. Mr X contacted the Council at the start of October to say the mounds were contributing to the rat issues he was experiencing and their location in relation to the entry points into his garden showed this. Mr X considered the mounds should be removed or at least relocated away from his property. Mr X also sought confirmation of the action the Council was proposing to take to deal with the rat issue.
20. Mr X contacted the Council at the end of November to complain he had not received a reply and that a promised revisit for the Council’s contractor to return to cut back vegetation that had been missed had still not taken place.
21. The Council sought advice in early December about the possibility of using bait boxes at the location. The Council was advised that the use of bait boxes would “be a bit pointless”. The Council interpreted this as being due to the area being open with a nearby pond or because no rats had been seen at the previous visit. The Council did not clarify the advice it had received.

22. The Council responded to Mr X in December and confirmed its pest control service had not recommended the use of bait stations. The Council confirmed the vegetation would be cut back by 20 December and apologised this had not been completed as quickly as expected. The Council received confirmation the work had been completed with photographs provided on 17 December.
23. Mr X contacted the Council in December to say he was still experiencing issues of rats entering his garden from the Council’s land. Mr X said he had previously been told bait stations would be required to reduce the numbers of rats and monitor their activity.

Analysis and findings

24. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it 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.
25. As explained at paragraph 7, the Council has a responsibility to do what it can to keep its area free of rats. Although the Council arranged a visit to Mr X’s property in August 2024 and found no evidence of rats, the report from this visit stated it was not possible to access the area the rats were purported to be coming from as it was overgrown.
26. There was no further action in respect of the issue of rats entering Mr X’s garden until October when a further pest control visit was made. I note the clearance of vegetation along the boundary fence itself was not completed until December so it is not clear what the pest control service was able to access at this visit. I am satisfied these delays constitute fault.
27. There is also no report from the October visit although a follow up email noted no rats as being seen. This is not the same as no evidence of rat activity. In the circumstances, I consider the absence of an adequate record is fault.
28. Finally, the Council did not seek to clarify why its pest control service did not consider bait stations would be appropriate.
29. The Council has not provided sufficient evidence it has properly responded to Mr X’s reports of rats entering his garden from its land. I am satisfied Mr X has been caused avoidable uncertainty about whether action could have been taken earlier to address the issue of rats entering his garden.

Back to top

Action

30. The Council has agreed to take the following action within six weeks of my final decision:
1. write to Mr X to apologise for the failure to properly respond to his reports of rats entering his garden and to take appropriate and timely action;
2. visit Mr X’s property and the area of land to complete a site survey for evidence of rat activity and ensure an adequate record is kept of the findings;
3. if the above survey finds evidence of rat activity, prepare an action plan to deal with the rats in a timely manner and keep Mr X informed accordingly; and

4. review its future site management in the light of the above survey and advise Mr X of the outcome (this should include a reasoned assessment of the frequency of cutting back the area and whether to maintain wildlife habitat areas and, if so, their location).
4. 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.
5. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

33. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman