Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council investigated smoke nuisance. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to take action against his neighbour, after he reported smoke from their wood burner was entering his property. He said the Council did not tell him about its procedures for investigating this type of nuisance and did not respond to his complaint. He said the Council’s inaction had led to increased heating costs when he could not use his own wood burner. He wants the Council to compensate him and take enforcement action against his neighbour.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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 our involvement, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X first contacted the Council about his neighbour’s wood burner at the start of 2023. He contacted it further in July 2023, at which point the Council completed a short investigation before closing the case.
8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his reports of smoke nuisance during 2023. That is because Mr X did not complain to us until March 2025, therefore, this part of his complaint is late. If he was unhappy with the Council’s actions, it would have been reasonable for him to complain at the time.
9. At the end of 2023, Mr X reported a further incident of smoke entering his property. The Council re-opened the case at the start of 2024. It contacted him and his neighbour, and sought certification the wood burner was correctly installed. As there were reports of smoke nuisance from both parties, the Council arranged an independent surveyor to assess both flues. It also restricted both parties use of their wood burners.
10. Mr X complained to the Council in July 2024. He did not receive a response. Towards the end of 2024, Mr X reported a further incident of smoke nuisance to the Council. He also submitted another complaint about how it had dealt with his reports of smoke nuisance. He said the Council had not told him he could use his wood burner.
11. In its complaint the response, the Council set out the steps it had taken to investigate his reports of smoke nuisance. It said it did not have any evidence of a statutory nuisance so could not take enforcement action. Although Mr X disagrees with this decision, we will not investigate his complaint. The Council has taken appropriate steps to investigate his reports of smoke nuisance including site visits and inspections. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
12. The Council apologised for not telling Mr X it had lifted restrictions on the use of the chimney stack following feedback that flue liners on both properties were satisfactory. That apology remedies any injustice caused.
13. The Council offered to complete a validation test as Mr X continued to report smoke nuisance. It said that would involve operating the stove in each premises whilst an officer was present to try and resolve the ongoing issues. I appreciate the Council did not offer to complete this test until the final complaint response, however, there is nothing to suggest that has caused a significant injustice. It remains open to Mr X is he wants the Council to this test. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.
14. The Council also apologised for failing to respond to his initial complaint. It explained that was because of an administrative error. It set out steps it had taken to prevent a further recurrence. That remedies any injustice caused; further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman