Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the harm the Council pest control measures caused to Mr X’s pet. This is because if Mr X remains of the view the Council was liable for harm or damages, it would be reasonable to expect him to pursue a claim with the courts.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that following the Council taking pest control measures at a neighbouring property, harm was caused to his pet. Mr X also complained about the Council’s subsequent handling of the matters, including its handling of his complaint.
2. Mr X said he suffered vet bills, among other costs and said the matter caused distress to him and his family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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 complained the Council set up pest control measures in a neighbouring properties garden which got into his own garden and led to his pet being harmed. Mr X said he incurred vet costs and other costs in trying to clear his garden to make sure it was safe for his pet and children to access again.
9. The Council’s insurer considered this as a claim and reimbursed Mr X for his vet costs but said it did not accept liability. Also, the Council said in its complaint response it had acted appropriately when setting up pest control measures at the neighbouring property.
10. Negligence claims and interpreting the law around legal torts are generally best decided by a court where no insurance liability is accepted. Only a court can decide whether the council is liable to pay damages for the loss or injury or damages a person may have suffered.
11. In this case, it is reasonable for Mr X to raise a claim in the small claims court if he believes the Council is liable for further costs or damages. Because only the court can order this, and we cannot, it would be reasonable to expect him to use this alternative legal remedy.
12. As an outcome to his complaint, Mr X also sought changes to the Council’s pest control procedures and staff training.
13. The Council said because of Mr X’s complaint, it has agreed to review its pest control standard procedures and it reviewed the communications it had with Mr X about the matter. The Council provided apologies to Mr X where it found fault in the way it communicated with him. These actions are appropriate.
14. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. Therefore, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s handling of his complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable for Mr X to pursue his claim by taking the Council to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman