Sorry to hear that you are having this problem.

How do you think burning logs would better than off cuts of 2x4 or pallets?
The chances are that pine 2x4 and pallet wood are going to be a lot dryer than logs. if you insist that they burn logs you might be making the situation worse.
Its is combustion temperature that determins how cleanly untreated wood burns, the higher the moisture content, the lower the combustion temperature and the more "smoke" produced

I think most pallets would burn fine. I suspect the problem is how they use their stove. Most dry wood burned incorrectly can give off nasty fumes and smoke even in a good quality appliance, but trying to show your neighbors how to use a stove properly might prove a bit tricky

Once up to temperature a good stove with decent fuel will not give off any visible smoke just a heat haze coming from the chimney.

I hope you find a good resolution and that your asthma improves.

The key thing would be moisture content, you can work this out given the timber species, and volume+weight of a sample. I suspect the DEFRA tests are carried out at a specified moisture content, and the stove manufacturer may specify a max water content too. You could use this to see if what they're burning is equivalent to "dry" logs or not. As has been said, any treated timber (e.g. the 4x2) would be a no-no.

If you still don't get any joy then a workaround might be for you fit a ventilation system with a HEPA filter (this would work if the particulates are causing your Asthma) - not cheap, but might be better than nothing...

Not all wood/pallets are treated timber. In the original post it was already stated that an EO had visited the neighbours and checked that what was being burnt wasnt treated timber.

As mentioned in my last post, this is my neighbours second attempt of burning wood to heat their home. Their first installation was a second hand multi fuelled boiler which they had installed themselves. The boiler was not DEFRA exempt and the installation had no certificate of conformity. They were burning painted pallets, painted architrave, painted skirting boards, plywood and off cuts off rough sawn timber, the fumes where horrendous! Their son works for a local construction company and was bringing the majority of the wood from site, most likely from skips. As also mentioned, it took my local EH Department 8 weeks to get the smoke stopped. My breathing capabilities worsened in very short space of time and I had to have an emergency appointment with doctor where steroids were prescribed to help strengthen my lungs. Other health problems I suffered were burning sensations to the back of my throat, headaches and nose bleeds. I had to purchase oxygen from the internet and slept in a fume mask which is now black! I was of the understanding that the Environmental Health Department had more powers than the police and was very disappointed when they didn’t close the appliance down during their first visit as my neighbour could not produce a certificate of conformity for their installation when asked. On one occasion the fumes triggered a Carbon Monoxide alarm within my property, I informed my neighbour of this and showed him the beeping alarm. I told him that he had filled my home with smoke once again and that I had to have an emergency appointment with the doctors. He said “the council have told me that I`m doing nothing wrong, in fact I was just about to stoke the fire” he went back into his property and within minutes dark smoke was once again emitting from his chimney.

My neighbours had a new DEFRA exempt 4.5 kw stove fitted in December by an HETAS approved engineer. A pile of thick branches (with leaves on) were delivered to his property shortly afterwards along with a large number of wooden pallets and a large pile of off cuts of wood ie. 4x2 rough sawn timbers. The fire was lit in December and we have been experiencing smoke and fumes in and around our property since then. I am now under the respiratory consultant at my local hospital and have been prescribed medication that is usually prescribed to people with COPD and emphysema to help me cope with the fumes.

My neighbours have now built a lean-to shed and have gone very secretive what they do in terms of their stockpile of wood. However a large pair of old wooden gate posts appeared on their lawn a month ago and were cut into small sections! One of the gate posts appeared painted and the other would more than likely have been tanalised at sometime. Regarding the colour of the smoke, the fumes have been at their worst during the dark evenings and you can`t really depict the shade. However, we have a security light fixed to the gable end of our property which lights up the smoke when switched on. The EH officer has said that they are allowed 15 minutes of burn time when the fire is first lit where the chimney is permitted to smoke. Recently the chimney has been emitting smoke for 15 minutes then stops and emits smokes again approximately 15 minutes later for a further 15 minutes, this goes on from mid afternoon until 10pm. The majority of the time the smoke and fumes come down and just stick in and around my property. During the dark evenings the fire is normally lit around 5pm and smokes more or less continuously until around 10 pm. This is a very pungent smell!

The EH officer has said that it has now become a problem right across the district and they are getting more and more complaints regarding smoke nuisance. We took a short walk into the village last night and we could smell wood burning in three properties as we walked past and it wasn’t even a cold night!

Mikeee

Ask your EH why he is applying commercial legislation (15 mins dark smoke at start-up, etc) in a domestic setting. You could also do an FOI and ask how many nuisance notices that the LA has served in the last year. Not where they are or the details, just the pure numbers. I would suggest the number is low.

Also try councillors, local MPs, etc.

I think nuisance is nuisance - the 15 mins comes from industrial emissions legislation. You could also ask for a copy of the LA's operating procedure / policy on investigating nuisance complaints and see if there are any other buttons to push...

Mikee5, CW is right when he says the diary is important as the EHO can't stand outside your house all the time. But when the smoke affects you, then you are there so you can right down exactly what you see, smell, experience and over what time. So many times I've been asked to investigate nuisance but the complainant couldn't be bothered to fill in a diary form - so how bad could the "nuisance" be then?
The 15 minute rule is for commercial boilers at start up only. Doesn't apply regarding domestic. Nuisance is different - you could have acrid black smoke for 3 minutes which could be a nuisance or light smoke for several hours that could be nuisance. It depends on whether it affects the "quiet enjoyment of your property", is seen as unreasonable in nature and extent etc etc - that's why EHO's do a 4 year degree!

The smoke is defiantly ruining the enjoyment of my property! A social evening on sunday with friends was ruined as smoke and fumes cascaded down the roof and on to the patio area where we were sat! Went on from 18.30 until 21.30 hrs. All nicely video recorded and entered in the diary. I have been in touch with my house insurers and it Is looking like i may be insured for legal expenses. I have also lodged my complaint with the local government ombudsman today! 

I still stand by this section of the clean air act 1993:
2. The fireplaces listed in the Schedule are exempt from the provisions of section 20 of the Clean Air Act 1993 (prohibition on emission of smoke in smoke control area), subject to the conditions listed in the Schedule.

The conditions are: fuelled with dry split logs only, not pallets, not rough sawn timber!

Mikeee

Be careful what you wish for (regarding the split logs). As long as the timber is untreated, sawn softwood timber is likely to burn cleaner than a slightly wet chunk of hardwood. Obviously treatment and paint is a problem.

It really sounds like it might be as much about how the burner is used rather all about the timber. UNtreated rough sawn softwood should burn really really well in a well used and setup wood burner.

Mikeee5 - smoke nuisance is the path to go down as it would be impossible to prove the fuel type - that's why your smart mouthed neighbour said it. Unfortunately, EH Departments don't generally have smoke monitors as these are incredibly expensive and temperamental lazer/infra-red things so most use the human eye (EHO) and they, probably, allocate 3 x 1 hour visits then that's your lot. That's why you need the diary and photos.
I used to have to monitor a huge chip board factory for smoke nuisance/complaints when I was an EHO - the main reason I'm no longer an EHO!

So Joiner has successfully done a Section 82 - well done you. Few people have the nerve or the conviction to do that. With a re-occurring stat. nuisance it is usually straightforward to serve a notice under section 80 but sometimes the EH Dept. simply don't have the staff to devote to an investigation for sufficient time to witness the nuisance. That's why section 82 is there.
Anyway, if you go down that route you will be surprised how simple it can actually be - so long as you can keep your emotions out of it. The difficulty arises when the EH Dept. has witnessed the problem but don't consider it sufficient to constitute a nuisance - if that's the case, you'd better do something else with your time.

Windy, had the OP taken up my offer I'd have warned him that it can be a daunting prospect, but as you've raised it here I might as well explain why for the benefit of any others who come along.

Depending on the circumstances of the person you're prosecuting they could be entitled to Legal Aid, whereas you won't be. In my case I had to take on the defendant's solicitor at the preliminary hearing and a QC at the actual hearing. Both those legal types at their respective hearings kept insisting that the reason I was going down the Section 82 route was because the council had backed down because they considered there was no evidence of nuisance. That wasn't so, but because the Council had stepped away from the case they didn't want to get involved further than allowing me sight of the actual Act and all their Guidance Notes with all the case law, legal opinions and judgements. I had a folder about an inch thick, the defending solicitor had nothing and the QC had just print-outs off the internet, which is when I knew I had them by the balls. They simply hadn't prepared and thought they'd bully their way through the court process by treating me with the contempt usually reserved for laymen mixing it with professionals. Hmm.

At this point it has to be said that I was lucky in not being a "typical" plaintiff, having studied law for two years as part of my business degree. Whilst that didn't make me a lawyer, it did mean I understood what I was looking at when I was reading the Act and the associated Guidance Notes and the language in which they were couched.

I pulled the solicitor up on three points of law, all of which were serious errors on his part, and when he turned to the bench and asked if he had to continue putting up with “these interruptions” he was told by the clerk of the court: “Yes, Mr X, because he's absolutely correct to point out your errors.” She didn't like him either!

But to get to the point I made earlier about the importance of video evidence and detailed logs, when we got to the actual hearing the QC asked if I had the videos with me and could we go into a side room and watch them? No problem. We sat side by side, him with his notepad, on which he occasionally made short one or two word 'notes'. After a while he asked how much of the video I had and I told him “about three hours”. He closed the notepad and asked me to switch the video off.

He then turned to me and said: “If you repeat what I'm about to say to you I will deny it and prolong this case for as long as I can.”

'OK.'

“How long have you put up with this?”

'Close on two years.'

“Had it been me I would have put a brick through his frigging (edited) window. Would you agree to settle this out of court?”

'We never wanted to be here in the first place.'

To give him his due he did tell his client that she'd be stupid to carry on and risk a fine, which somewhat surprised me, and she was definitely not happy. But we did settle it and within three months the problem started again. The dog returned from wherever it had been sent and the music was as loud as it ever was, prompting a letter from me warning that if they didn't observe the terms of the agreement we would have to take them back to court. The events following that letter is why I have a criminal record for assault.

Moral? Don't settle out of court.

All that said, in the words of Judge Sullivan: “It is important that ordinary members of the public who may not have any legal experience are not deterred from pursuing complaints which are well founded on the merits by over-technical procedural requirements.”

And you'll find that still applies. The court is very understanding and forgiving of procedural errors (like calling them something other than 'Your Worship', or sitting down when you should be standing).

And in the words of Chief Justice Lord Bingham: “It would frustrate the clear intention of Parliament if the procedure provided by Section 82 were to become bogged down in unnecessary technicality or undue literalism. It is important that the system should be operated by people who may be neither very sophisticated nor very articulate, and who may not […] have the benefit of specialised and high quality advice.”

Think Small Claims court.

And in the Scottish case of Adams v. Glasgow City Council: “Here it was held, amongst other things, that s.82 notices should only be required to indicate broadly the nature of the complaint even where legal advice has been taken. The court was strongly of the view that overtechnical requirements might be a dis-incentive to members of the public raising statutory nuisance proceedings.”

You have a case. Go for it.

Difficult. In comparison, the court bit was the easy part.

He was 20, coming on 21. I was 59. He was a convicted burglar, a minor dealer of drugs and had acquired a reputation for violence even at school, from where he was frequently suspended. When someone like that pushes his sneering face to within three inches of yours the target is too much of an invitation to ignore.

These situations drive you to the brink and when the red mist comes down...

(Cue ominous music.)

Been there (or somewhere close) more than once, Joiner, red mist included, but luckily some combination of my innate cowardice and bad aim has saved the dolt opposite me every time so far... Though it did finally get though to the people concerned that I really was VERY VERY ANGRY and their behaviour adjusted at least a little in the right direction.

Rgds

Damon