Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with and investigated her reports about her former neighbour’s use of a wood-burning stove in 2023. An investigation would not lead to a different outcome. There is no worthwhile outcome investigation by us would now achieve. The courts are better placed to consider any claim of legal liability for Ms X and her husband’s illnesses.

The complaint

1. Ms X and her husband live next door to a property whose former owner used a wood-burning stove. She complains the Council:
1. failed to provide them with sufficient support and protection when they reported smoke pollution from the stove;
2. failed to reply to telephone calls and evidence;
3. ignored their reports of their neighbour using incorrect fuel in the stove;
4. refused to visit to see how the smoke affected them;
5. did not properly check whether the stove had been correctly installed under the Heating Equipment Testing and Approvals Scheme (HETAS);
6. did not support them in seeking to change the neighbour’s flue to better vent the smoke.
2. Ms X says they could not use the garden when the stove was lit and also had fumes in the house. Ms X implies the stove smoke may have caused serious health conditions she and her husband have since suffered. She says she has been left with uncertainty about the cause of those illnesses.

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:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation; or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Ms X, the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X reported her concerns about the former neighbour’s wood burning stove for several years up to 2023. She then complained to the Council about how it had dealt with the matter later that year. The Council’s complaint response says officers had visited the neighbour and checked whether the stove had been installed in compliance with HETAS requirements. Officers were satisfied the installation and the neighbour’s use of the stove were compliant and that its service effectively investigated the matters raised.
6. Even if there has been Council fault as claimed by Ms X here we will not investigate. The neighbour who used the wood burning stove moved from the property in 2024. There is no ongoing issue with the current neighbour’s use of the stove. An investigation by us would not now provide any different practical outcome for Ms X. It is also several years since the Council’s officers were involved in the matters complained of. Investigating a council’s service as it was in 2023 would not now achieve a worthwhile outcome or provide a sufficient benefit for Ms X, nor for the wider public, to justify our involvement.
7. We recognise Ms X and her husband have had serious and distressing medical conditions in recent years. They understandably continue to wonder about the cause of those illnesses and have raised concerns that they were caused by their former neighbour’s stove. But an investigation by us could not determine whether the neighbour’s use of the wood burner was that cause, nor resolve their uncertainty on that question. There is no worthwhile outcome on this issue which an investigation by us would achieve for Ms X and her husband.
8. A finding of fault by us against the Council in its environmental protection role here could also not be a direct cause of Ms X and her husband’s medical conditions. Any claim about the causes of their ill health would primarily be an allegation of liability against Ms X’s former neighbour as the person directly responsible for the wood burner and how it was used at the time. It would be a claim of personal damages against that neighbour, a legal case which could only be determined by a court. If Ms X is of the view that the Council bears either full or partial responsibility for her and her husband’s illnesses, she may wish to take independent legal advice before pursuing that route. We cannot make decisions on legal claims for personal damages. As the body which can settle legal liability questions, the court is better placed to consider this aspect of Ms X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• an investigation would not lead to a different outcome;
• there is no worthwhile outcome investigation by us would now achieve; and
• the courts are better placed to consider any claim of legal liability for Ms X and her husband’s illnesses.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman