Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of matters concerning the storage of gas cylinders at a property near his home. We will not investigate the complaint because 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 refuses to take responsibility for health and safety issues concerning the storage of gas cylinders at a property near his home, has given inaccurate information and has no understanding of the relevant legislation. He says its errors date back to 2002 and that the presence of the cylinders has caused much stress and should be removed.

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 or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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)

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. At the beginning of 2020, a resident complained to the Council on behalf of a group of residents, including Mr X, about the Council’s handling of complaints made to it concerning the storage of gas cylinders at a property close to their homes at which some commercial activity takes place.
6. The resident complained the Council had failed to take responsibility for the monitoring and supervision of gas cylinders in a residential area and that their continued presence created an ongoing risk to person and property.
7. The Council responded at the two stages of its complaints procedure. It explained its role and powers under the existing legislation and regulations and that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) had become involved and that body had served a notice of contravention to the owners and issued guidance to ensure the storage of the cylinders met HSE regulations. It said the HSE had satisfied itself that no further action was needed and that the cylinders were being stored safely.

Assessment

8. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 of this statement applies to the part of Mr X’s complaint which concerns the Council’s handling of complaints made by residents about the gas cylinders dating back to 2002. It is too late to look at these events now as they fall outside our jurisdiction due to the passage of time and I see no grounds which warrant exercising discretion to investigate them now.
9. The Council responded appropriately to the current concerns raised about the cylinders in 2020 and advised that their quantity would be considered as part of a planning enforcement investigation about the use of the premises. The HSE has been involved and assessed the situation and taken the action it thinks appropriate under the powers it has. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to a different outcome and the remedy Mr X seeks in asking that the Council indemnify residents for any uninsured loss of property and personal injury, including compensation for any increase in their insurance premiums, is not one we would propose even if we investigated and found fault.
10. Mr X has also complained about how his complaint was dealt with by the Planning Service rather than Environmental Health but I do not consider a complaint investigation by a different service would have led to a different response.
11. In responding to my draft decision Mr X says the storage of the cylinders has been ongoing since 2002 and that it was only in 2020 that residents, having become aware of the relevant legislation, decided to trigger the complaints process. However, Mr X and other residents would have been aware of the ongoing storage of the cylinders since 2002 but did not report concerns again until 2020. Given that almost 20 years has passed since then, and that I consider it reasonable to have expected Mr X to have complained sooner if he had had concerns, we will not exercise discretion to investigate past events.
12. Mr X says the Council does not understand its legislative responsibilities. The Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 (DSEAR) can be enforced by either the HSE or local authority. In this case the HSE has been involved and has satisfied itself that no further action is needed and the Council has assessed that the amount of gas stored is well under the threshold that would require an application for a licence under the Hazardous Substances legislation. I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman would be likely to lead to a different outcome.
13. Mr X also says the Council has wrongly taken credit for involving the HSE. While I note what both Mr X and the Council have said on this matter, I do not consider it is one which warrants investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman