3. Mr U complains that the EA has not taken sufficient action to stop a source of water contamination from entering his land.
4. As a result, he says he is unable to use the land to graze his sheep.
5. Mr U seeks further action from the EA on his complaint.
6. Mr U has told us that on several occasions between January and May 2021 he observed brown contaminated water running in, and close to, his field. He says this led to one of his sheep dying and others becoming ill, meaning he had to move them to another location, and he is now unable to use the field to graze his livestock.
7. He believes the water contamination source was coming from one of two properties; either from a local farm or from a septic tank situated at nearby house.
EA has not taken sufficient action to stop a source of water contamination from entering Mr U’s land
9. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.
10. Before coming to our decision, we asked the EA for details of any working policy it may follow when investigating reports of waste contamination.
11. The EA told us it does not have a specific policy outlining which incidents it will investigate, however, its national position is not to routinely investigate minor (category three) incidents. It has told us this has been the case for several years and in particular from April 2021 when several areas stopped attending reports of minor environmental incidents. It said this is in order to focus resources on the most serious pollution breaches.
12. We can see that the EA assessed Mr U’s complaint and categorised it as a category three incident. However, it did attend the site and observed water flowing from a field near to the two houses. It said there was no odour and no evidence of contamination. It said in its complaint responses that it had written to the owners of the two local properties to remind them of the need to comply with the General Binding Rules for sewage disposal. It also said it had assessed the potential impacts on the environment of the pollution reports and did not consider there to be a significant or major pollution issue.
13. This is in line with the EA’s environment and sanctions policy which says it should act proportionately, taking into account the level of risk posed to people and the environment, the seriousness of the alleged breach of the law, the impact on the environment, and the cost of taking enforcement action against the benefit of taking it. It is also in line with its public customer service commitment which says it needs to prioritise activities on incidents causing serious and significant risk, and may in some circumstances, after assessing the risk, decide not to take any further action.
14. While we fully understand Mr U’s concern for the health of his livestock, we are of the opinion that the EA demonstrated good complaint handling in response to his complaint.
This is because it fully assessed the incident and attended the site outside of its routine commitments in order to further assess the environmental risk. The EA then reported back to Mr U and explained the reasons why it did not take any further action. This is in line with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s principles of good complaint handling, in which we expect organisations to clearly explain what is and is not possible and to act proportionately to the situation.
15. On this basis we have found no indication of service failing and have decided to take no further action on Mr U’s complaint.
1. We have carefully considered Mr U’s complaint about the Environment Agency (EA) and have decided not to take any further action as we have not seen any indication of service failing.
2. We will explain the reasons why in more detail below. We hope the information in this statement reassures Mr U we have considered all of his information and clearly explains the reasons we have decided not to take further action on his complaint.