Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to take action against nuisance caused by his neighbour who keeps pigeons and feeds wild ones. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council has told him it cannot help him with the nuisance caused to him by his neighbour who keeps pigeons and feeds wild ones. Mr X says he has to constantly clear up pigeon waste and he is disturbed by the presence of the wild birds on his roof. He wants the Council to stop his neighbour feeding the wild pigeons and to remove the pigeon lofts from his neighbour’s garden.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X, including the Council’s responses to it. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered his comments and the additional information he provided.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X’s neighbour keeps pigeons in lofts in his garden and has fed wild pigeons which have congregated on Mr X’s roof.
6. Mr X complained to the Council that his neighbour should not be feeding wild pigeons because of the nuisance caused to him. He also complained that a covenant which applies to both their ex-Council properties prevents structures such as pigeon lofts being erected in their gardens.
7. The Council investigated Mr X’s complaint, visiting him and his neighbour. Having done so it decided the neighbour’s feeding of wild pigeons was not a statutory nuisance against which it could take action. It asked the neighbour to stop feeding the wild pigeons and advised Mr X he could take his own action against the neighbour in the Magistrates’ court.
8. With regard to the presence of pigeon lofts in the garden, the Council told Mr X that it had consulted with its Legal Team and that while the properties had originally been Council properties, as they were now both privately owned the enforcement of covenants was a private matter between the current owners. It suggested he seek his own legal advice about the matter.

Assessment

9. While I understand Mr X is disappointed with the Council’s decision that the criteria for a statutory nuisance has not been met, we cannot review the merits of this decision and I have seen no evidence to suggest there has been fault by the Council in the way it dealt with the matter.
10. The Council has advised Mr X of the legal options open to him and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
11. In responding to my draft decision Mr X says the Council made numerous errors, the main one of which concerns the covenant and his view that pigeon lofts should never have been allowed in his neighbour’s garden. However, the Council no longer owns the properties and if Mr X wants to enforce a covenant covering them then this is a civil law matter between him and his neighbour.
12. Mr X also refers to the historic summary he provided which sets out the problems which have existed between him and his neighbour. However, while their poor relationship is unfortunate, the Council considered his current nuisance complaint and having done so did not find a statutory nuisance and advised him of the option of taking his own action in the Magistrates court.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman