Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a visit by an Environmental Health Officer to the complainant’s home. He is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council and cannot provide the remedy the complainant seeks.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr B, is unhappy with the actions of an Environmental Health Officer (EHO) when he visited his home. He says the EHO caused him great distress and should be sacked.

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’.
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

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

4. I have considered what Mr B said in his complaint and an audio recording he made during the EHO’s visit. The Council has also provided background information including its responses to Mr B’s concerns. I invited Mr B to comment on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. Unless it finds there is a statutory nuisance, a council cannot take any formal action. For an issue to be a statutory nuisance, it must:
• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises; or
• injure health or be likely to injure the health of the average person.
6. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers (generally an EHO) to gather evidence. They may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or undertake site visits. The EHO will then assess the evidence and decide if a statutory nuisance exists.

Summary of events

7. Mr B complained to the Council about nuisance caused by light from a nearby house. The Council arranged for an EHO to visit Mr B’s home to assess if a statutory nuisance existed. Mr B made an audio recording of the visit.
8. Mr B says the EHO’s behaviour was threatening and unprofessional. He complained to the Council immediately after the visit and insisted it sack the EHO.
9. The Council found no evidence to support Mr B’s complaint. In contrast, it said it found Mr B’s actions inappropriate. It said Mr B would only allow the EHO to leave the property when he began to call the police.

Analysis

10. I was not present at the EHO’s visit to Mr B’s home and so cannot be sure exactly what took place.
11. I have heard the audio recording Mr B made. As with any such recording, it does not give a full picture of events. It is clear communication became strained once the EHO started to explain the nature of a statutory nuisance. However, I cannot say the recording overwhelmingly supports Mr B’s view that the EHO was threatening and unprofessional.
12. Further, Mr B says the Council should sack the EHO. If we find fault by a council has caused injustice we can recommend the council provides a remedy. But we cannot recommend action against an individual employee; disciplinary action is a matter for a council to decide.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council and cannot provide the outcome Mr B seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman