Summary: Mr X complained the Council has failed to take appropriate action to deal with issues relating to abandoned vehicles and the state of his neighbour’s property. There was no fault in the Council’s investigations into the issues Mr X complained about. The Council has already accepted it was at fault when it did not keep Mr X up to date at times and apologised for this. This is sufficient to remedy any injustice this caused Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to take appropriate action to deal with the following issues at or concerning his neighbouring property:
• abandoned vehicles parked on his street which belong to his neighbour, Mr N.
• the poor state of the gardens and land owned by Mr N.
2. Mr X says the rubbish in the garden is affecting his enjoyment of his own property and that the vehicles abandoned in Mr N’s side garden are affecting other residents in the area.
3. Mr X also complains the Council failed to communicate appropriately with him and closed down the matters he complained about without informing him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke to Mr X and considered his view of the complaint.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided. This included information about the locations and the state of the abandoned vehicles, information about site visits made by the Council, complaints correspondence and a chronology of actions with supporting evidence.
8. I considered the relevant legislation and guidance.
9. I wrote to Mr X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978

10. The Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 gives councils the statutory power to remove abandoned cars on a public highway.
11. The Council has its own policy on when it will classify a vehicle as abandoned. This states officers should consider various factors, including whether the vehicle:
• has a keeper on the DVLA’s database and is untaxed;
• is stationary for a significant period;
• is unsuitably parked;
• is significantly damaged, run down or unroadworthy;
• is burned out; or
• has number plates missing.
12. If a vehicle satisfies a number of factors listed in the policy, the Council can take action to have the vehicle removed.

Prevention of Damage by Pets Act 1949

13. Under s4 of the Prevention of Damage by Pets Act, councils can service a landowner with a notice requiring him to take reasonable steps to get rid of pests such as vermin from his land.

Environmental Protection Act 1990

14. Under section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate complaints of potential statutory nuisance.
15. The Act defines a number of matters as being a statutory nuisance including:
• any premises in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance;
• fumes or gases emitted from premises so as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance; and
• dust, steam, smell or other effluvia arising on business premises and being prejudicial to health or a nuisance
16. Prejudicial to health is defined as “injurious, or likely to cause injury, to health”.
17. The courts have held the test of whether something is prejudicial to health is objective and the person’s particular circumstances, or increased sensitivity to something cannot be taken into account.
18. If a council identifies there is a statutory nuisance it must serve an abatement notice under s80 of the Act on the person causing the nuisance.
19. Under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, a member of the public may bring a claim of statutory nuisance in the magistrates’ courts.

Town and Country Planning Act 1990

20. Under s215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, councils have the power in certain circumstances to take steps requiring land to be cleaned up when its condition adversely affects the amenity of the area.
21. If it appears the amenity of part of their area is being adversely affected by the condition of neighbouring land and buildings, they may serve a notice on the own requiring the situation to be put right.
22. The use of s215 by councils is discretionary.

What happened

23. On 4 February 2019, Mr X complained to the Council about several issues relating to his neighbour, Mr N’s, property. In particular, Mr X complained about the following:
• Mr N’s house was dirty and run down;
• the front and back gardens were overgrown and full of rubbish, including scrap metal, encouraging vermin;
• there were a number of abandoned vehicles on land adjoining Mr N’s property; and
• there was an abandoned car, trailer and farm machinery on the street at the back of Mr N’s property.
24. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s complaint and carried out an inspection towards the end of February.
25. On 8 March 2019, Council officers from planning and streetscene met Mr X on site to discuss his concerns.
26. The officers advised Mr X that the vehicles were on private land and/or were not in such a condition that the Council would classify them as ‘abandoned’ under its Abandoned Vehicles Policy.
27. On 11 March the Council served Mr N with a notice in relation to s4 of the Prevention of Damage by Pets Act 1949. This related to vermin such as rats on his land.
28. Council officers were in contact with Mr N following the site visit about the vehicles. He confirmed his vehicles were not abandoned.
29. Officers, including a Pest Control Officer, carried out a number of site visits from April to July 2019.
30. On 20 August, the Council emailed Mr X advising him of what steps the Council had taken. The email stated there was no evidence of pests on Mr N’s land and Pest Control had closed the case.
31. On 25 August Mr X emailed the Council because he was unhappy it had closed his case, particularly in relation to the state of Mr N’s gardens and vehicles. Mr X was also unhappy the Council had not kept him informed.
32. Several days later, the investigating officer and a Council solicitor carried out a site visit for a legal view on serving Mr N with further notices. The legal opinion supported the officer’s view that no further notices should be served.
33. In September 2019, the investigating officer and the head of streetscene carried out another site visit. The investigating officer discussed a number of issues with Mr X, including why the Council had concluded the vehicles were not abandoned.
34. Whilst on site, the officers spoke to Mr N who agreed to move some of his farm machinery which was stored on his land in front of his garage. Mr N agreed to move these to alleviate the situation. This was informal action which the Council had no powers to enforce.
35. Following two further site visits by officers, Mr N moved the machinery in October 2019.
36. The Council replied to Mr X at stage 2 of its complaint procedures. It apologised for not keeping him updated and provided an update of the actions it had taken to deal with the issues he had raised. The Council confirmed the vehicles were not defined as abandoned under its policy and there were insufficient grounds for it to issue a notice under either s80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or s215 of the Town and Planning Act 1990.
37. The Council sent Mr X a second response shortly afterwards to say he should call Pest Control if he saw any rats in his garden and that officers had carried out another site visit and remained satisfied with the action it had taken. It confirmed there were no planning or other infringements.
38. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

Investigation of issues raised by Mr X

39. We are not an appeal body, so cannot comment on the merits of judgements and decisions made by councils in the absence of fault in the process. Our role is to review the process by which decisions are made, and, where we find fault, to determine what injustice it caused.
40. The Council carried out site visits on several occasions. It involved officers from streetscene, planning and legal. It spoke to both Mr N and Mr X and explained its actions and the reasons for them. The Council monitored the situation and advised Mr X of the steps he could take in future.
41. Council officers used their professional judgement to assess the evidence and to come to a decision on whether it was appropriate to issue a statutory notice to Mr N. In doing so, officers took legal advice. They decided there were insufficient grounds to issue a notice. On the evidence seen so far, there was no fault in how the Council made these decisions.
42. The Council’s actions were appropriate, proportionate and in line with its policies and the relevant legislation. On the evidence seen, there was no fault.
43. It is open to Mr X to take his own private action against the neighbouring property under S82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
44. The Council has already accepted that it could have kept Mr X more up to date and apologised. This is sufficient to remedy any injustice this caused Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

45. There was no fault in how the Council carried out its investigations into the matters complained about by Mr X. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman