Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions to address pests in Mr X’s property because there is not enough evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to take appropriate action to address rats in his property since May 2025.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
3. 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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. On review of the documents provided I note the Council carried out an external site visit in late May. It asked the landlord to carry out two drain surveys in July and August, chasing these up when needed. In October the landlord carried out works to seal the ingress route and lay bait for any rats already in the building. In November pest control attended to lay bait and check whether rats remained.
8. It is up to the Council how to carry out its investigation and address the infestation. That the Council did not enter Mr X’s property itself is not evidence of fault.
9. It is at the Council’s discretion whether to take formal enforcement action at any stage. Its policy says it will only serve an enforcement notice when there is no alternative and when all other reasonable attempts have been made to achieve the necessary action voluntarily. The Council took informal action to resolve issues with the landlord in line with its policy. There is no evidence of undue delay by the Council and not enough evidence of fault in its decision not to take formal enforcement action. There is also not enough evidence the Council failed to have regard to its Equality Act 2010 duties or that any failing affected its decision making.
10. The Council must carry out a Housing Health and Safety Rating System inspection where it considers this to be appropriate. The Council explained this was not appropriate as no rats were found in living areas of the property, there were no other housing issues and it was more appropriate to use legislation specific to the issue, in this case the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act. Mr X says there were rats in the living areas. While this is disputed, I do not consider this affected the Council’s decision, which was ultimately to use the specific legislation intended for the issue. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making. There is also not enough evidence the Council failed to have regard to its Equality Act 2010 duties or that any failing affected its decision making.
11. Councils have a duty to make enquiries where a child is considered to be suffering or likely to suffer significant harm. Significant harm covers the risk of physical, sexual, emotional abuse or neglect. The Council told Mr X it did not consider his complaint met its threshold to make safeguarding enquiries. That Mr X disagrees is not evidence of fault. And I consider any fault would not have affected the decision outcome, given the presence of rats is not evidence of abuse or neglect.
12. It is not a proportionate use of our resources to investigate the Council’s communications or complaint handling, including any failure to make reasonable adjustments, when we are not investigating the substantive matters.
13. Mr X complained to us on 6 November 2025. On 19 November 2025 he added the Council had since closed his case. He then continued to update us on new matters.
14. On 17 November the Council closed Mr X’s case following reports from pest control of no rat activity over two weeks. Mr X disputed this decision and the Council agreed to inspect the property on 27 November. There was then a dispute over the inspection such that Mr X withdrew his consent to it.
15. The Council issued a final complaint response on 10 December 2025 but this did not address the dispute over the inspection or any events thereafter.
16. We cannot look at new or ongoing matters. It is reasonable for the Council to have the opportunity to investigate and reply first. Mr X may complete the Council’s complaint process regarding any new matters arising from 6 November 2025 and complain to us again if he is unhappy with its final response.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman