Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate how the Council dealt with the complainant’s concerns about a boiler in a neighbouring property. It is unlikely he would find evidence that fault by the Council has caused the complainant significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs B, has complained about how the Council considered her concerns about a boiler in a neighbouring property. She says it has not taken account of a report by Gas Safe Register prepared in 2016 which she obtained through a Freedom of Information request in 2019.

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; or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered what Mrs B said in her complaint and background information provided by the Council. Mrs B commented on a draft before I made this decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. We previously investigated a complaint from Mrs B about how the Council considered if the boiler in the neighbouring property was a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1980. We concluded there had been no fault by the Council that caused Mrs B significant injustice.
6. It is the role of professional Environmental Health Officers to decide if a statutory nuisance exists. The report by Gas Safe Register which Mrs B has now obtained is about the boiler installation. It does not relate to the existence of a statutory nuisance. I do not consider this provides grounds to alter our previous decision
7. Mrs B also said the report showed the installation did not comply with the Building Regulations because the boiler discharged across a boundary. The Council’s Regulatory Service Director met with a senior officer of Gas Safe Register in February 2019 to consider Mrs B’s concerns. They concluded the report did not accord with Gas Safe procedures and should have referred to the discharge as an ‘observation’ and not a ‘defect’. It arranged for the report to be revised.
8. The Council and Gas Safe Register jointly confirmed to Mrs B in February 2019:

• there is an appropriate distance between the boiler and her home; and
• there is no evidence of a statutory nuisance.

On this basis, I cannot conclude Mrs B has been adversely affected by the boiler installation or how the Council has dealt with her concerns about it.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council causing Mrs B injustice that warrants our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman