Summary: Ms B complains about the way the Council carried out its investigation into her reports of nuisance caused by flies from a neighbouring farm. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms B, says the Council did not properly investigate her complaints of nuisance caused by flies from a neighbouring farm. She says officers had no expertise in fly identification; she was not informed of the criteria used for judging whether the flies were a nuisance; the fly count data was incomplete and the Council did not properly assess the flies’ impact on her family’s life.

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
• 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

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms B and the Council. I gave Ms B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms B complained to the Council about nuisance caused by the increased presence of flies at her property following the expansion of a neighbouring farm. Ms B said the flies were originating from the farm and that the farmer should carry out regular spraying and cover the slurry tank.
5. Ten times over a period of a week different Council officers visited Ms B and monitored locations within her property and garden to assess the problem. On each occasion they looked at whether the number of flies present would amount to a statutory nuisance but on each occasion the officers all concluded they did not. The Council told Ms B it would not carry out any further investigation.
6. Ms B submitted a formal complaint about the way the Council had carried out its investigation. It responded by explaining its powers and responsibilities derived from the law which covers statutory nuisance and how it is a defence for businesses to say they operate using “best practicable means” when responding to complaints of nuisance. The Council said it had carried out a thorough investigation and that it was the presence of flies, rather than their species, which would determine whether there was a statutory notice.
7. The Council told Ms B it had taken into account that the Environment Agency had previously visited the farm at its request and had found it to be operating within industry guidelines. The Council acknowledged the flies were a problem for Ms B. However, it said it could not recommend the farm adopt the practises Ms B wanted and it did not uphold her complaint.
8. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Ms B complained to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

9. Ms B is clearly affected by flies at her property. However, I have seen no evidence to suggest there was fault in the way the Council carried out its investigation. Officers made ten visits to record the number of flies present but did not witness a statutory nuisance. This was disappointing for Ms B but it was a decision officers were entitled to reach and we cannot review the merits of it.
10. While I note Ms B says officers visited after a cooler than normal June, and that if she had known the criteria the Council would use to assess whether there was a nuisance she would have asked for a postponement, we cannot conclude the outcome would have been different.
11. Ms B says the fly data collected by officers during their visits and given to her is incomplete as it did not cover all the locations most affected. However, officers did sit in an area she says is badly affected and so would have been aware of the fly presence there.
12. Ms B has made reference to environmental control regulations she believes should apply to the farm. However, the Environment Agency has already carried out an assessment and found the farm to be well run.
13. In responding to my draft decision, Ms B has explained the great impact the flies have had on her family’s life. I do not doubt this is the case. However, our role is to assess whether fault has caused the complainant injustice and while the flies are a great irritant to Ms B this is not evidence of fault by the Council.
14. Ms B disputes whether the Council properly recorded the presence of flies in her outside seating area. However, given that different officers made 10 visits and recorded the flies inside and outside the property it would appear they were satisfied they had gathered sufficient information to come to a decision. As has previously been explained to Ms B, it is open to her to take her own legal action against the farm under section 82 of the 1990 Environmental Protection Act.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman