Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council investigated reports of burning on property neighbouring the complainant’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s action to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mrs X, complains the Council:
• Provided inadequate and wrong information
• Gave a neighbour warning of an inspection visit
• Failed to investigate the reported nuisance
• Failed to keep her updated; and
• Refused to explain a conflict of interest
2. Mrs X wants the Council to issue an enforcement notice to ensure the waste from her neighbour’s domestic stables is managed and stored correctly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X reported her neighbour was burning manure, causing a nuisance.
7. The Council confirms it wrote to the neighbour advising that burning of manure is not allowed.
8. It also confirms:
• an Officer has visited the area several times and has not witnessed a statutory nuisance
• the section of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 quoted by Mrs X does not apply to domestic stables
• the Clean Air Act 1993 does not apply to burning horse manure
• visits were made to multiple properties in the area including during the summer months and no reports of burning manure were received; and
• Mrs X can present diary sheets or photographs which are date and time stamped if incidents of burning continue.
9. The Council confirms the Officer who investigated Mrs X’s complaint about her neighbour is not the same Officer who investigated a report into an unauthorised business running from Mrs X’s property. Therefore, there is no conflict of interest. It also confirms that it has been in contact with Mrs X by telephone and email. The Council does not provide weekly updates to those reporting nuisances, and I do not consider Mrs X has not been kept informed.
10. From the information I have seen there is no evidence of fault. The investigation was conducted in line with procedures. Officers assessed the information provided by Mrs X. The relevant checks were made and a site visit to the neighbouring property was undertaken. At no point did Officers witness a statutory nuisance or any other issues that would warrant further action. It is not for the Ombudsman to assess whether there was a statutory nuisance, that is for the Council to decide. The Ombudsman will not question the merits of decisions where the correct process has been followed: that applies to this case.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered report of burning on her neighbour’s land to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman