Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has been unfair and prejudiced against Ms X, a private landlord, in connection with a pest infection at her property. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council has been unfair and prejudiced against her by making her pay for pest control treatment at her tenanted property when the problem had been caused by the tenant’s irresponsible behaviour.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X, including the Council’s response to her complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council contacted Ms X to carry out pest control treatment at a property she rented out to tenants.
6. Ms X paid for the treatment under protest, believing the tenant’s behaviour was responsible for the problem. She complained to the Council about this matter and said that in her view the Council had sided with the tenant.
7. The Council responded by explaining it had taken an informal approach, advising it could escalate to formal enforcement if it inspected the property. It said Ms X had asked that the property not be inspected and instead, albeit under pressure, said she would arrange for the necessary professional pest control treatment.
8. In reply to Ms X’s claim that the infestation had been the tenant’s fault, the Council noted that it had received no evidence to confirm the cause of the infestation had been tenant behaviour. It further noted that while Ms X had said there had ben no pest problem when the tenant moved in, this did not mean the tenant had caused it. It confirmed in such circumstances it expected landlords to address what had been regarded as a hazard and prevent spread of the infestation.
9. The Council has already explained it carries out its Environmental Health role separately to any tenancy clause which states the tenant is responsible for dealing with pest control issues. This is a civil law matter between landlord and tenant and not one the Council would become involved in.
10. It is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. While Ms X may be disappointed with the outcome of the Council’s investigation of her complaint, there is no evidence to suggest fault affected the way it handled the case.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman