Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging the complainant for clearing rubbish from a property she owns. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council charged her to remove rubbish from a property she owns. She doubts the rubbish came from her property and says she was unaware of the Council’s letters. Mrs X wants a refund.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I looked at photographs of the rubbish, the notices served by the Council and the removal work sheet. I invited Mrs X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949

4. This Act allows a council to serve a notice requiring an owner to remove waste from a property to reduce the risk from vermin. If the owner does not comply a council can remove the waste and charge the owner for the work.

What happened

5. In August Mrs X found that tenants had moved out of a property she owns and left it in a very poor condition. Mrs X notified the council tax department and said that over the next few months she would be refurbishing the property.
6. Mrs X did not visit the property until December because she was shielding. But, she says her husband kept an eye on the house.
7. The Council received a complaint about rubbish at the house. It visited and sent a warning letter to Mrs X in September asking her to remove the rubbish. It got Mrs X’s name, as the property owner, from the land registry. The letter, and all subsequent letters, were sent to Mrs X in her name. The Council visited in October and found the rubbish was still there. It served a notice, under the 1949 Act, requiring Mrs X to remove the rubbish within seven days. Mrs X did not clear the rubbish so the Council arranged the clearance and charged Mrs X £179.
8. Mrs X found the invoice in December and says this was first she knew of the issue. She paid because she was worried about the threat of legal action. She complained that the rubbish did not come from her property, that the Council had not contacted her and that no letters had been sent to the property in her name.
9. In response, the Council confirmed the rubbish came from her property. It said it had no record of an address for her and got her details from the land registry. It said she, as the owner, is responsible for any waste within the boundary of the property. It said it has no access no other council systems that she may have been in contact with.

Assessment

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Mrs X had emailed the council tax team to report that her tenants had left. The notices about the rubbish were served by a different service area which would not have had access to any information Mrs X provided to council tax. The Council acted correctly by obtaining details of the owner from the land registry and by writing to Mrs X at that address. The Council sent letters to Mrs X before it carried out the work and the 1949 Act allows it to arrange for the work to be done if the notice is not complied with. In addition, Mrs X was responsible for the property while it was empty and says her husband was visiting to pick up post. In addition, the work sheet shows the waste removal work was completed for Mrs X’s address.
11. I appreciate Mrs X feels aggrieved but there is no suggestion of fault by the Council and no reason to ask for a refund or start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman