Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint alleging that bee droppings are causing a statutory nuisance. This is because I have seen no fault in the way the Council reached its decisions on this case.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to as Mr X, says, in summary, he is suffering a great deal of hardship from bee droppings caused by a neighbour’s honey business. He says the Council has failed to deal with the matter properly.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information provided by the complainant. I have read the responses from the Council to Mr X. I shared my draft decision with him and note his comments.

Back to top

What I found

4. Councils can consider complaints about ‘statutory nuisance’ as defined in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. For the problem complained about it must be judged to ‘unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises’ or ‘injure health or be likely to injure health’.
5. Mr X is concerned with a local resident allegedly keeping bees for commercial gain. He says they are causing brown droppings on property, cars, garden items and windows.
6. The Council has responded to Mr X’s complaint by describing its actions taken to date. It says it investigated by laying a 1m sq. sheet of paper in his garden for 2-hour periods monitored over 4 days by different officers. It says the officers reached a unanimous decision that that the matters complained about do not represent a statutory nuisance.
7. Mr X says there was a cold wind on the days in question which resulted in the bees not being as active as usual. The Council disagrees. It says the wind was light; and the weather warm and dry. It stresses that any brown deposits seen on Mr X’s own monitoring results could not be said to represent an ‘unreasonable’ interference with the use of his property. It says the spots could come from insect, animals, business, trade premises and depend on many variables due to the weather, building structures, local flora and fauna etc. It advises Mr X that he can take his own action under s82 of the Environmental Protection Act.
8. My final decision is the Ombudsman will not investigate. This is because I have seen information showing the Council has investigated Mr X’s concerns. I have noted Mr X disagrees with the Council’s definition of a statutory nuisance and considers it has ‘ignored’ his evidence. However, as I have seen information showing the Council has investigated the matter in some detail but reached a decision the droppings do not amount to a statutory nuisance, the Ombudsman has no grounds to intervene.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate as there is no fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman