Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with concerns raised about a wood burner and flue installed at a property near the complainant’s home. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained the Council failed to properly look into his concerns about a wood burner and flue installed at his neighbour’s property. Mr X says the flue does not comply with building regulations and is a health hazard.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Building Regulations 2010 sets out the rules for installing combustible appliances. The government has a competent person’s scheme to allow installers deemed competent to self-certify their work and the Council will not be involved in the certification process.
5. Mr X says his neighbour’s flue does not comply with regulations and the Council has refused to properly look into his concerns. However, primary responsibility for the building works rests with those that commission it and those who carry it out. In this case, the wood burner and flue were installed under the competent person’s scheme and the Council was entitled to rely on this as an indication the flue was correctly installed.
6. Furthermore, the Council did contact the certifying body in response to Mr X’s concerns and it said the flue installation was compliant with regulations. A building control officer from the Council has visited the site and found no evidence to dispute these findings.
7. The Council’s environmental health officers have also looked into Mr X’s concerns about fumes from the flue but decided there was not a statutory nuisance and closed its case.
8. I understand Mr X does not agree with the Council’s decision not to take any further action in relation to the flue. But this was a decision the Council was entitled to make, and the Ombudsman cannot question the Council’s professional judgment unless it was tainted by fault. As the Council properly considered Mr X’s concerns about the flue it is unlikely I could find fault.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman