Drainage
A credible below-ground route may justify testing by a drainage specialist; an indoor rat report alone does not prove a defect.
Successful rodent control depends on more than filling the nearest hole. We establish where activity is current, reduce it safely and time proofing around the confirmed route.

A loft containing historic debris needs a different response from a kitchen where fresh droppings appear each morning. We ask when the area was last cleaned, whether food has been disturbed and where sounds or sightings occur. Photographs with scale help, but identification also considers dropping form, gnawing, tracks, grease marks and the layout around the sign.
Greenford properties range from houses with extensions and garages to flats, shops and industrial premises. Pipe penetrations, damaged air bricks, loading doors and gaps beneath fitted units can all deserve inspection, yet their presence alone does not prove use. The technician looks for continuity between the indoor evidence and a plausible approach route.
The order may change where safety or urgent building damage requires immediate action.
Current signs, food sources, harbourage and possible access are recorded by position rather than treated as one general problem.
Devices are chosen and secured with occupants, pets, non-target species, competing food and inspection access in mind.
Captures, feeding, disturbance and fresh evidence show whether placement and scope remain appropriate.
Durable materials are recommended for relevant routes once the risk of displacing activity has been considered.
The report should say what has been found, what remains uncertain and who is best placed to act.
A credible below-ground route may justify testing by a drainage specialist; an indoor rat report alone does not prove a defect.
Roof, cladding or structural repairs may require a competent contractor and the owner’s authority.
Overgrowth can limit inspection and shelter movement, but cutting it back is not a substitute for control.
Overflow, damaged containers and collection arrangements need operational correction as well as pest monitoring.
Do not deep-clean the newest evidence before it has been photographed. Make skirting edges, sink cupboards, utility areas or loft hatches accessible where safe, and identify any locked external stores. Food should be sealed and loose refuse removed, but there is no need to empty an entire home without instruction.
For a business, nominate someone familiar with deliveries, cleaning and waste. For a rented or managed property, clarify which areas fall inside the dwelling and which require the landlord’s permission. This lets the initial visit concentrate on evidence rather than unresolved access.
The answers depend on the species, route, setting and current evidence.
No. Size, shape, position and other evidence must be considered. Keep a photograph with scale and avoid direct handling; a technician can compare it with gnawing, tracks and sightings.
Many gaps are inactive or irrelevant, while closing an active route can displace movement. Proofing should follow identification, control and evidence that links the opening to the pest.
Drainage can be a route, but it should not be assumed from an indoor sighting. Credible position and evidence may justify specialist drain testing by an appropriate contractor.
Placement depends on occupants, pets, non-target risk, food competition and the ability to inspect devices. Controls should remain secure and should not be moved between visits.
A review looks for no fresh droppings, gnawing, captures, feeding or monitor disturbance over an appropriate period, while checking that food and access actions were completed.
Tell us where and when activity appeared so the inspection can test the route properly.