Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take action over his neighbour’s boiler outlet which he says causes nuisance and a threat to his health. We should not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns matters which Mr X was aware of before the 12-month timescale for submitting complaints.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council refusing to take action over his complaints about a neighbour’s boiler flue. He says it failed to comply with building regulations and that the plume of vapour presents a nuisance to his property and his health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X complained to the Council in April 2018 about his neighbour’s boiler flue. He said it was too close to his boundary and that the plume of gases was a hazard to his health. The Council told him that the flue met Building Regulations requirements and that it would not take any enforcement action.
6. In 2019 Mr X complained to the Council again. The Council told him the neighbour had already installed a diverter kit which is the standard solution for complaints of this nature. It said that there was unlikely to be a statutory nuisance at that time because there was insufficient evidence of boiler fumes causing a problem. It advised Mr X to consider taking a private nuisance action which he subsequently did.
7. Councils have a duty to consider reports of nuisance and it is for the officers to decide whether or not, in their opinion, a statutory nuisance exists. Mr X remained dissatisfied and made a further complaint to the Council in 2020 following his legal action. The Council has taken no further action because the issue complained about is the same as his previous complaints.
8. Mr X complained to us in January 2021 which is outside the 12-month period for making complaints. He informed the Council in April 2018 that he would complain to us if the Council did not take action. His complaint was received outside the 12-month timescale and we will not exercise discretion to consider it now because the Council gave its view on the matter in previous years.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We should not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it concerns matters which Mr X was aware of before the 12-month timescale for submitting complaints.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman