Summary: Mr D complains the Council has failed to resolve issues with waste in the passageway next to his home which he says is causing a rat infestation. The Ombudsman has found one instance of fault by the Council and upholds the complaint. He has completed the investigation because there is no outstanding injustice to Mr D.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council has failed to resolve issues with contaminated bins, dumped waste and rats in the communal passageway at the rear of his home.
2. He also refers to delays by the Council investigating an alleged House of Multiple Occupation at the rear of his home.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have looked at the first part of Mr D’s complaint regarding waste in the passageway. I explain below why I am not investigating the alleged HMO.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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’. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have spoken to Mr D and considered the information he provided.
7. I asked the Council questions and carefully examined its response.
8. I shared my draft decision with both parties and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

9. In August 2019 Pest Control attended Mr D’s home after he reported rats in his garden. Bait was laid in the garden. In September Mr D contacted the Council about rubbish bins left out in the communal passageway at the rear of his home. He was concerned about rats attracted by people dumping waste. Mr D asked the Council to inspect two properties opposite the rear of his home (property one and two) and check they had sufficient bins as he felt they were responsible for a lot of the issues. On 27 November, a Private Sector Housing Officer (Officer) visited the site and properties one and two. They arranged for bins for property one, and this action was confirmed later that day. Property two had an overgrown rear garden. There was no evidence of rats or other vermin, but they referred the case to the Private Sector Housing Enforcement Team. The Officer also updated Mr D via a voicemail message.
10. On 28 November Mr D submitted a formal complaint to the Council. Around the same time, he also requested a joint site meeting with Environmental Health and Private Sector Housing Teams. On 3 December Officers from those two teams attended the passageway. They had notified Mr D about the visit, but he was not at home. Mr D disputes this. The Council found the passageway was clear of any waste. On 9 December Mr D reported dumped items in the passageway, an Officer attended the next day and found the waste was removed. On 12 December the Council replied to the complaint. It said Officers had visited and not found any significant issues. It attached a photograph of the passageway. It went onto say it would put recycling stickers on bins in 2020 and there was no evidence of rats. Mr D requested the Council escalate his complaint five days later.
11. On 3 January 2020, the Council inspected the passageway and took photographs. No waste was found or issues with the bins. On 10 January, the Council drew up a Notice under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act for property two. It required the owner clear the rear garden and carry out pest control within 21 days. The Council failed to address the Notice and it was not sent. On 22 January, the Council replied to Mr D’s complaint. It apologised for some errors in its previous reply, an incorrect photograph, and the wrong days for clearing waste. It confirmed the passageway had been clear when Officers inspected.
12. In February, the Council delivered leaflets about recycling to properties in the area. The Council’s Crew Supervisor also carried out monitoring of the passageway. In 2020 11 instances of waste being dumped were logged and they were all cleared within five working days. Furthermore, the waste was examined for evidence of who had deposited it, unfortunately there was no identifying data in the waste.
13. In July, Mr D emailed the Council that he had repaired an issue with the gate to the passageway. The Council’s records show that it carried out further works in August.
14. The Ombudsman started his investigation at the end of August. In September, the Council realised its error with the Notice, and it was issued to property two on 15 September. In October, the Council delivered more recycling leaflets to properties in the area.

What should have happened

15. Under the Council’s household waste and recycling policy there is a weekly collection of general non-recyclable household waste. Bi-weekly collections of the recycling bin are made to properties served by a passageway. Bin crews are reminded to keep the access gates locked after collections. If the bin crew find a recycling bin contains non-recyclable items, it is classed as contaminated and cannot be emptied. The crew make a report on its IT system and leave either a sticker on the bin or a card through the door of the property explaining the need to remove contaminated items. If a bin is repeatedly contaminated the Council will contact the resident and give advice initially.
16. It is illegal to dump waste in the passageway. A resident can report instances via the Council’s website. The Council will investigate reports within five working days in most cases. Waste will be checked for evidence of who deposited it and if evidence is found the Council can take formal action. If there is no evidence the Council cannot do anything further other than remove the waste. The Council also carries out occasional monitoring of passageways on a rota basis and logs issues. The Council can install CCTV to monitor a passageway. However, this is only done where there is evidence of a continual and serious waste dumping issue that cannot be resolved by other means.
17. The Council carries out annual baiting of sewage systems under the passageways. It is due to bait the drains under the passageway next to Mr D’s home in October 2020. If the Council receive a report about a private property causing a rat infestation a Private Sector Housing Enforcement Officer will carry out an inspection. If they find sufficient evidence, for example an overgrown garden which could attract vermin, they can serve a formal Notice requiring action by the owner within a set timeframe.

Was there fault by the Council

18. There is one instance of significant fault by the Council. It failed to serve the Notice on property two in January 2020. Instead that action was only completed in September after this investigation had started. That is not acceptable and clearly there has been a delay of eight months to serve the Notice.
19. I have not found any other evidence of fault.
20. Mr D says the Council should rectify issues with bins being repeatedly contaminated. However, the Council’s records show that during 2020 there have been no contaminated bins in the passageway. In addition, visits and monitoring by the Council have found the passageway to be generally clear and bins presented in an acceptable manner. There have been 11 instances of waste being dumped and the Council has responded to those in line with its procedures and timeframes. It has also checked for any evidence of the people depositing the waste, but no such evidence has been found. The Council cannot take enforcement action against the perpetrator without this evidence. There was a problem with the passageway gate in July/ August 2020 which was repaired. I understand Mr D would like the Council to install CCTV to monitor the passageway. There is no requirement on the Council to do so because the issues in the passageway do not meet the necessary criteria.
21. I appreciate Mr D feels the Council should do more to stop waste being left in the alleyway. However, I am satisfied the Council has adhered to is policies and procedures and, aside from the one fault I identified, has acted reasonably.
22. Mr D also told me the Council had restricted his access to it. I asked the Council about this and it says that no restrictions have been placed on Mr D and his contact with the Council. Officers have, correctly, advised Mr D on how to best report issues. There is no fault in this matter.
23. Mr D told me he wanted the Council to engage with the residents of properties he believes are largely responsible for problems with waste. He felt that further education on recycling would stop the problem. The Council has “agreed to take this request forward for further engagement with the properties”. That will be done this month depending on Covid restrictions.

Did the fault cause an injustice

24. There has been a delay issuing the Notice to property two. However, there is no firm evidence that property two is the source of any vermin in the passageway. As such I cannot say that Mr D has been caused a significant personal injustice. The Council has offered its apologies, via the Ombudsman, to Mr D for the delay and I consider that to be a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

26. I have not investigated how the Council has pursued the case about an alleged HMO. That is because there is no direct injustice to Mr D. Instead I have considered how the Council investigated issues regarding waste at the property.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman