Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to take appropriate steps to find his current address when it served him with an environment protection notice. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to take appropriate steps to find his current address when it served him with an environment protection notice under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949. He also says the Council did not provide enough evidence to demonstrate it was reasonable to serve the notice.
2. Mr X says that as a result, the Council placed a charge on his property for costs it incurred in serving the notice, including the costs of making a Land Registry search to establish his current address. Mr X says he only discovered this when he put the property up for sale the following year and realised the Council had placed a charge on his property. He said the charge caused delays and he lost the sale.
3. He wants the Council to remove the charge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X is the landlord for a property. In 2023 the Council served a notice concerning the property because it considered an accumulation of waste items in the garden could attract pests and vermin. The Council checked with Council Tax but the address Council Tax had recorded was an old address of Mr X’s. It therefore carried out a Land Registry search to identify Mr X’s current address. It sent the notice and other related documents to the address on the Land Registry
9. Mr X did not respond. Therefore, the Council removed the waste and later placed a charge on the property to recoup the costs.
10. Mr X says he first became aware of the situation when he put the property on the market in summer 2024. He said the charge caused delays and complications to the sale and he lost a potential buyer.
11. Mr X complained and said that the Council had not made sufficient efforts to find out where he lived. He also said the photographic evidence showed issuing the notice was unwarranted.
12. The Council responded. It said it had taken reasonable steps to identify where Mr X lived. It reminded Mr X it was his responsibility to ensure his contact details were up to date with both Council Tax and the Land Registry. It disagreed with Mr X’s view that should not have issued the notice.
13. The Council took appropriate steps to identify Mr X’s address. It cannot be held responsible if Mr X did not update his information with Council Tax. And because the information was out of date, it was reasonable for it to make a Land Registry search. Again, it cannot be held responsible if Mr X also did not update those records. The Council was entitled to recoup the costs it incurred. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.
14. It is for the Council to decide whether a situation is such that it warrants the issuing of a notice. In this case, the Council had photographic evidence of the waste products and clearly explained why it might attract vermin and pests. There is no evidence of fault in how it made its decision. Therefore, we cannot criticise the decision itself.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman