Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to deal with rats in overgrown vegetation on land near his home. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify us investigating further.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to deal with rats in overgrown vegetation behind his home. He says the Council initially agreed to clear the vegetation but has now reneged on this because of the cost. Mr X is unhappy the Council has told him it will not take further action unless receives evidence of rats accessing residential properties nearby. He wants the Council to take the action it initially said it would to resolve the issue.

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 or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council has completed visits to assess the site and been unable to complete this due to overgrown nature of the vegetation. Council Officers have not found evidence of rat infestation on the site or in neighbouring residential properties. The Council has explained to Mr X that it would typically seek to identify the owner of land so it can serve appropriate notices on them to clear the site. The Council has found the land is unregistered and therefore is no owner liable for vegetation clearance. The Council has also explained it has to balance its duty to prevent pests accessing private properties against preserving natural wildlife in its area and the best use of its limited resources. The Council has asked Mr X to provide evidence that rats have accessed his or other residential properties to help it decide whether further action is needed.
6. We will not investigate this complaint as we are not likely to find fault. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Council has a duty to take reasonably practicable steps to investigate when a person living in their area complains about a potential nuisance.
7. In this case, the evidence shows the Council has done this as it has inspected the site and established there is no evidence to warrant it taking further action at this time. It is also reasonable for the Council to ask Mr X and other residents for evidence of rats accessing their homes before acting further.
8. As the Council has followed the correct process to investigate Mr X’s concerns, we could not find fault with the decisions and actions it has taken.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify us investigating further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman