London Borough of Merton (24 005 755)
Category : Environment and regulation > Pollution
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 03 Sep 2024
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council investigated his reports of odour and fumes from a business, decided not to enforce, explained its decisions and dealt with his complaint. Even if there has been Council fault in all matters complained of, there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to Mr X by them to warrant us investigating. We do not investigate council complaint-handling when not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.
The complaint
- Mr X lives about 2 miles from a business premise, located near a railway line he uses for regular travel. The business uses spray paints on its products. Mr X complains the Council:
- failed to properly investigate or enforce in response to odours and evidence of possible breaches of a Part B environmental permit by the business;
- wrongly dealt with the matter only as a statutory nuisance issue when it was also a Part B environmental permit issue;
- did not fully explain its decision;
- wrongly dismissed his complaint.
- Mr X says he passes the premises on his way to and from work and is exposed to the unpleasant and potentially health-harming paint fumes. He is concerned about the fumes’ impacts on the company’s employees and on the wider environment.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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:
- any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
- any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information from Mr X, relevant online maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- The business requires a Part B environmental permit because its activities cause emissions into the air. Mr X says he has been pursuing the matter for some years. In response to his reports, the Council’s officers investigated by visiting the business in autumn 2023. The officers decided the firm was complying with its permit and that no statutory odour nuisance was being caused. Mr X says the site visit was not done when the odour-creating activity was happening and the facilities at the site for the activity were in breach of other requirements. Officers were satisfied that they had acted correctly when investigating the matter and explaining their decisions. They say the site is subject to ongoing inspections and audits to ensure it is compliant.
- We note Mr X disagrees with the way the Council has investigated, its findings, its decision-making process and its decision not to enforce against the business. But even if there has been fault by the Council in all the matters Mr X has raised we will not investigate. Mr X lives about two miles from the business premises so it has no impact on him when he is in or near his home. He travels to and from work on trains which pass the premises. We recognise Mr X is concerned about being exposed to the fumes and finds them unpleasant during these train trips. But this level of brief exposure is an insufficiently significant personal injustice to him to warrant us investigating. We understand Mr X is concerned about the fumes’ effects on the business’ staff, but any impact on them is not his injustice. We also note Mr X’s concern about the effects on the wider environment from the fumes. But any such impacts would have no significantly greater effect on him than they would on other residents. This and all other impacts claimed do not amount to a sufficiently significant personal injustice to Mr X to justify us investigating.
- Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his complaint. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
- even if there has been Council fault in the matters complained of, there is insufficient significant personal injustice caused to him to justify us investigating; and
- we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling when not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman