Summary: We will not investigate this complaint alleging the Council confirmed the complainant was the source of a complaint about a smoke from a neighbour’s wood burning stove. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation which would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mr X, says the Council revealed him as the source of a complaint about smoke nuisance from his neighbour’s wood burning stove.
2. Mr X says this has led to his family living in fear as the neighbour has made threats against them.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X, including the Councils report following an investigation into his complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complained to the Council that smoke from his neighbour’s woodburning stove was causing a nuisance.
7. The Council confirms it wrote to the neighbour explaining it had “received a complaint alleging that smoke from your wood burning stove is affecting your neighbour’s property and as such is causing a statutory nuisance.”
8. The correspondence went on to advise how to minimize smoke. The Council wrote to Mr X confirming a letter has been sent to the neighbour and asked him to complete diary sheets if the problem continued.
9. Some weeks later Mr X complained to the Council that his neighbour had threatened his family and told them he knew they had complained about him. Mr X advised the Council of further threatening behaviour from his neighbour which he had reported to the police.
10. In its response to Mr X the Council confirms no personal data was released to the neighbour. The correspondence refers only to a complaint about smoke affecting a neighbour. The Council also notes that Mr X lives in a road of terraced houses and the complaint could have been made by someone from either side.
11. I will not investigate this complaint as the Council has confirmed it has not released information to the neighbour identifying Mr X as the complainant. Also, the Council is not responsible for the neighbour’s behaviour. Mr X has reported this matter to the police which is the appropriate action.
12. In addition, the neighbour has removed the wood burning stove so the smoke nuisance is resolved.
13. The Council has apologised for the delay in responding to Mr X’s complaint and explained this was due to relevant staff being aware from the office. I consider the apology to be a suitable remedy to this part of the complaint and further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify an investigation which would also be unlikely to lead to a different outcome. The Council has apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint which is a suitable remedy to this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman