Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about pest control treatments because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about inadequate pest control visits and the conduct of a pest control officer (Mr B). Mr X wants a refund.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start 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

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and information about Mr B that I cannot disclose. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X paid for pest control to visit. His payment covered three visits. The terms and conditions say that if further visits are needed another payment is due.
5. The officers found evidence of vermin around the boiler and laid bait. On subsequent visits they found the bait had not been taken. After one visit Mr B gave Mr X a business card for a private firm he works for.
6. Mr X says the treatment failed. He says the workers failed to identify where the mice were active and expected him to be able to report the source of the infestation. Mr X suggests the officers did a poor job in the hope that Mr X would employ the firm Mr B works for. The visits did not eradicate the vermin and Mr X had to employ another firm and pay for their services.
7. Mr X complained about poor service and asked for a refund. He also complained about Mr B giving him a business card. The Council declined a refund but offered another visit to offer advice (not treatment). It said it carried out three visits/treatments and the officers used their judgement to assess were to lay bait. The Council said it cannot guarantee a treatment will be effective and further visits do require another payment. It said it had spoken to Mr B about the business card and was satisfied the incident had not affected the service provided.
8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The pest control officers attended as per the terms and conditions and, while Mr X is critical of their work, it would not be possible for us to judge the adequacy of the visits. We did not witness the work, and we do not have the expertise to assess if proper pest control methods were followed. But, it seems unlikely that any pest control service could guarantee a treatment will be successful.
9. I have seen staff notes regarding Mr B and the business card. The notes show the Council spoke to him about the incident. Due to data protection I cannot share any of this information, but I have not seen anything to indicate it affected the treatment provided.
10. I acknowledge Mr X’s frustration and that he had to pay for additional treatments. But, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman