The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to Mr X’s neighbour’s wood burning stove. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision not to use an independent check/test of his neighbour’s wood burning stove which he says is causing a nuisance. He also complains that despite initially being told he could bring a third party to the third stage panel consideration of his complaint, the Council then changed its position.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, including its responses to his complaint.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X complained to the Council about nuisance caused to him by his neighbour’s wood burning stove.
The Council investigated and considered the evidence, including officer visits, diary sheets and tests results from the official body HETAS (Heating Equipment Testing and Approvals Scheme) on the installation of the neighbour’s equipment. However, having done so, and following numerous visits by officers where there had been no evidence to support Mr X’s claims of a nuisance, it subsequently closed the case Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council which covered the nature of its investigation and the visits made and about its acceptance of the HETAS test which another industry body said was negligent. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint.
It is not our role to act as a point of appeal. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. There is no evidence to suggest fault affected the Council’s decision and it has explained to Mr X that regardless of whether the stove had been properly installed, what it considers is whether there is a statutory nuisance in existence and it found no evidence of a potential nuisance.
While I note the Council’s changed position on the attendance of the third party to the Stage 3 consideration of the complaint, this is a secondary matter which we will not pursue when we are not investigating the substantive issue.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman