Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of a complaint about the smell of cannabis from a neighbouring property. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to take action against their neighbours over smells of cannabis which they say have been coming into their home for two years. She says the neighbours and the previous occupants have affected their home life and the Council and police have taken no action to prevent it.

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 impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr and Mrs X complained about the smell of cannabis from their neighbour’s home in 2022 and continued to do so when neither the Council nor the Police took any action. The Council says its officers visited the neighbours and the complainants on several occasions and no evidence of smells were identified which would warrant further action.
6. The Council told Mrs X that it could only take action against a statutory nuisance and smoking cannabis on their own premises was not anti-social behaviour but was a criminal matter for the Police. The Police visited the neighbours on several occasions and found no evidence of anti-social behaviour and took no further action.
7. Because Mrs X made continued calls to the Police and the Council’s Environmental services, she was issued with a Community Protection warning letter in January 2023 which restricted her from making unsubstantiated repeat complaints about her neighbours. Mrs X says she was upset by this action and that she was not the perpetrator of the nuisance.
8. The legislation places a duty on councils to investigate reports of nuisance and to take reasonable steps to investigate any complaints of statutory nuisance that it receives. The task of detecting statutory nuisances is usually delegated to Environmental Health Officers. They are the recognised experts and their professional judgement is the basis of any abatement action which may be taken.
9. We cannot overrule the council’s decision on whether or not to take action over nuisance, as it isn’t our role to say whether a smell complained about is a nuisance in law or whether action must be taken to reduce it.
10. We cannot say there was fault in the issuing of this warning letter as the authorities involved have powers under the Anti-social behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to take such action. When considering complaints, we may not question whether the decision the Council has made is right or wrong or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members when there is no fault. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about whether there is fault in a decision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of a complaint about the smell of cannabis from a neighbouring property. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman