Summary: There was fault by the Council in this complaint about pest control, because it drew an unsafe conclusion on the basis of the evidence it had gathered, failed to visit the complainant despite agreeing to do so, and inadvertently implied it had found a statutory nuisance when it had not. The Council has agreed to apologise and offer a financial remedy to the complainant, contact him now to arrange a visit to his property, and reassess the evidence it gathered during its investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr G.
2. Mr G complains the Council has not taken effective action to address an untidy property near his own. He says the state of the property is such that it has caused a rat infestation in the area, which in turn has led to significant damage to his own property.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr G and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr G says, in November 2024, significant damage was done to his property because of an infestation by rats. Mr G believes the infestation was the result of a neighbouring property with an untidy garden, which borders his own, and says a pest controller who visited his property wrote a report confirming this. Mr G therefore contacted the Council to ask it to take enforcement action against the occupier of the neighbouring property.
7. The Council asked Mr G to provide a copy of the pest controller’s report, which he did in December, along with photographs documenting the damage to his property.
8. In January 2025, the Council wrote a letter to the neighbour, informing them of the allegations and asking them to remove any “identified sources of rat infestation” from the property.
9. A few days later the Council wrote again to Mr G. It said officers had visited the neighbouring property four times, and that it was “now satisfied that the location is no longer of a statutory nuisance level with the owner having removed the accumulated waste”. It explained what rights Mr G had to take action privately against the occupier, including under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
10. In February Mr G wrote to the Council again. He provided a new photograph of the neighbouring garden, showing it remained untidy, and said it still contained potential areas of rat harbourage. The Council replied to say its officer had not been “allowed to access” the garden, and instead had relied on their judgement. It said the majority of the rubbish had been removed, that the photograph did not show any obvious source of food for vermin, and that the degree of untidiness did not constitute a statutory nuisance in itself.
11. Mr G then submitted a stage 1 complaint to the Council. He described the damage done to his property by the rats, and said he felt he had provided sufficient evidence to show the neighbouring property was responsible. Mr G asked the Council to take formal enforcement action.
12. It does not appear the Council provided a formal response to Mr G’s stage 1 complaint, but it replied a few days later to explain it still had an open case for him and that it would provide him with an update. The Council also advised Mr G it provided pest control services and suggested Mr G book a visit.
13. The following day the Council wrote to Mr G again. It explained again that officers had been unable to access the neighbouring garden, but had seen no evidence of rats. The Council reiterated its suggestion Mr G book a pest control visit. It also said the report Mr G had provided did not specifically identify the neighbouring property as the source of the infestation.
14. Mr G replied to say it was not reasonable to expect the report to identify a specific property, and that he had also provided evidence of the rubbish in the neighbouring garden. Mr G asked the Council to advise how to escalate his complaint to the Ombudsman.
15. The Council issued a stage 2 complaint response to Mr G in April. It said it had partly upheld his complaint because, while “the Environmental Protection team… deduced there was no further action to be taken due to the lack of evidence… there has been recent review of the processes by the team under these kind of complaints.”
16. The Council said it had introduced a new step into its process, whereby a pest control officer was required to visit Mr G’s property to identify any evidence of rat infestation from the neighbouring property. If so, the Council would contact the neighbour to eliminate the infestation. The Council said the officer would contact Mr G within the next two weeks.
17. In June, Mr G referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Legislative background

Statutory nuisances

18. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
19. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance include:

• noise from premises or vehicles, equipment or machinery in the street;
• smoke from premises;
• smells and fumes from industry, trade or business premises;
• artificial light from premises;
• insect infestations from industrial, trade or business premises; and
• accumulation of deposits on premises.

20. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance, it must:

• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other property; and/or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.

21. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. Officers may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or make site visits. Councils will sometimes offer an ‘out-of-hours’ service for people to contact, if a nuisance occurs outside normal working time.

Abatement notices

22. If a council is satisfied a statutory nuisance is happening, has happened or will happen in the future, it must serve an abatement notice. If the nuisance is noise from premises, the council may delay issuing an abatement notice for a short period, to try to address the problem informally.
23. An abatement notice requires the person or people responsible to stop or limit the activity causing the nuisance. Failure to comply with an abatement notice is an offence, which can lead to prosecution and a fine.

Section 82 of the EPA

24. Section 82 of the EPA allows a member of the public to take private action against an alleged nuisance in the magistrates’ court. If the court decides they are suffering a statutory nuisance, it can order the person or people responsible to take action to stop or limit it.

Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 (PDPA)

25. Under this act, a council has the power to issue an enforcement notice to private landowners or occupiers, requiring them to take steps to eradicate rat or mouse infestations on their land.

Back to top

Analysis

26. The Ombudsman’s role is to review the way a council has made its decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or unduly delayed making a decision. We call this ‘fault’ and, where we find it, we can consider the impact of the fault and ask the council in question to address this.
27. However, we do not make operational or policy decisions on a council’s behalf, or provide a right of appeal against its decisions. If we find a council has acted without fault, then we cannot criticise it, even if the complainant feels strongly it has made the wrong decision. We do not uphold a complaint simply because a person disagrees with something a council has done.
28. In this case, that means it is not for me to decide, for example, whether the neighbouring property genuinely is the source of a rat infestation, or whether the Council should issue an enforcement notice to the occupier. These remain decisions for the Council to make, regardless of my findings. But I can criticise the Council if I consider there is fault in the process it has followed.
29. Mr G believes the Council should accept the neighbouring property is responsible for the rats, on the basis of the evidence he has provided. This consists of a series of photographs of the garden, along with the report from the private pest controller he contracted.
30. I have only seen one of the photographs submitted by Mr G, but the Council has explained it does not appear to show any obvious sign of food sources, which are known typically to attract vermin. I understand Mr G does not share this view, but the Council’s decision is a matter of professional judgement and one it is entitled to make.
31. The Council has also explained the private report does not identify a specific property as the cause of the infestation.
32. The report says:

“Neighbouring garden provides both suitable cover and food source alowing [sic] for the breeding and harbourage of rats and may well be a likely source.”

33. It is true this does not specify which neighbouring garden it is referring to, although it appears unlikely to be referring to any other property. But, either way, I do not consider the report provides unequivocal evidence that property is responsible for the infestation, as Mr G implies – it simply suggests it might be. As such, I consider the Council was entitled to treat this report with caution.
34. This being so, I do not consider it is fault the Council has not agreed Mr G’s evidence conclusively identifies the neighbouring property as the source of the infestation.
35. Despite this, I do have some points of concern about the Council’s investigation.
36. The Council has provided evidence to show it carried out several visits to the neighbouring property – once in November, followed by three in January. On the same day as the last visit, the Council wrote a letter to Mr G to say it was satisfied with the improvements the neighbour had made, and was taking no further action.
37. However, the Council has also said its officer was not granted access to the neighbouring garden during these visits. It has explained the evidence it saw of ‘improvements’ was that the neighbour had placed a skip at the front of the property, and then removed it.
38. Under both the EPA and PDPA, a council has powers which allow it to demand entry to a private property. If the occupier refuses, the council may then apply to the magistrates’ court for a warrant to enforce entry. In response to my enquiries, the Council explained it did not pursue this in this case, because it used “other routes to determine if there was accumulation of waste within the property”.
39. Again, it is not for me to decide whether the Council should seek a warrant to enter the property. However, given Mr G’s complaint was entirely concerned with the state of the garden, I cannot see how the Council could have completed a meaningful assessment without going into the garden. I do not consider the emplacement and removal of a skip from the front of the property could, on its own, reasonably be taken to mean the rear of the property was now clear.
40. This, of course, does not mean the neighbouring garden was definitely the source of the apparent rat infestation. But, as far as I can see, the entire reason for the Council’s decision not to take further action was because of what it had seen at the front of the property. I do not consider this can be safely relied on to draw the conclusion the Council did. This is fault.
41. My second point of concern is that, in its response to Mr G’s complaint, the Council said a pest control officer would contact him within the next two weeks to arrange a visit to his home, but Mr G says no such arrangement was then made.
42. The Council has told me there was a delay in referring the case to its pest control officer, which did not happen until the end of March, but that the officer visited the site on 3 April. The officer decided it was no appropriate to carry out a pest control treatment to the area at this time, because there was insufficient evidence of an infestation.
43. I have no reason to question this. However, the offer the Council had made to Mr G was for the pest control officer to visit his home, not simply the general area, which evidently did not happen. This, also, is fault.
44. My third concern relates to a comment the Council made in its email to Mr G of 29 January. The Council said (emphasis added):

“[We] are now satisfied that the location is no longer of a statutory nuisance level with the owner having removed the accumulated waste and skips after a letter of notification was delivered to their address.”

45. This implies the Council had, previously, decided the site did represent a statutory nuisance. If so, the law then required the Council to serve an abatement notice on the property, and it had no discretion in this. Failure to do so would be a significant fault by the Council.
46. The Council has explained its original assessment was that there was a potential statutory nuisance on site, but, after witnessing the improvements made by the occupier, it decided there was not. The Council says this was it intended to convey by its comment there was “no longer” a statutory nuisance, although it accepts its choice of words was misleading.

Conclusions and injustice

47. I find fault by the Council, because the evidence from the site visits does not support the conclusion it drew; because it did not arrange a visit to Mr G’s property, as it said it would; and because it caused confusion by suggesting it had found a statutory nuisance when it had not.
48. I consider the first two points of fault caused Mr G an injustice. This is not to say I think the Council should have established the neighbouring property was the source of the rats, or that it should have taken enforcement action against the occupier, because these are not decisions I can make. However, the Council’s failure to properly investigate, and to visit Mr G, caused him frustration and creates uncertainty.
49. I do not consider the third point of fault caused Mr G an injustice, because, while the Council’s comment had the potential to create confusion, there is no suggestion Mr G appreciated the implication of the comment before now.
50. To remedy the injustice to Mr G, I consider the Council should take the following steps.
51. First, the Council should write a formal letter of apology to Mr G, acknowledging the faults I have identified here and the impact of these on him. In accordance with our published guidance on remedies, the Council should also offer to pay Mr G £300, as a financial remedy for the frustration and uncertainty it caused.
52. Second, if Mr G still wishes to pursue this, the Council should make urgent arrangements for a pest control officer to visit his property.
53. Third, the Council should reassess the evidence it has gathered through this investigation, including anything new which comes from a visit to Mr G’s property. It should consider what conclusions it can safely draw from the evidence and decide whether it should continue to investigate, including possibly carrying out further visits to the neighbouring property, and seeking to gain access to the garden.

Back to top

Action

54. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council should:

• write a formal letter of apology to Mr G. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings;
• offer to pay Mr G £300 to reflect his frustration and the uncertainty caused by the Council’s faults;
• contact Mr G to confirm whether he still wishes a pest control officer to visit his property, and if so, make arrangements to visit as soon as possible; and
• reassess the evidence it has gathered during the investigation and reconsider what conclusions it supports, to decide whether it should carry out further investigation.

55. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

56. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman