Consumer rights expert Dean Dunham has advised householders on their legal remedies for persistent neighbour cooking smells and unaddressed faulty home products.
Writing for legal guidance columns published by This is Money and the Daily Mail, Dunham addressed consumer queries regarding intrusive extractor fan odours and a Hampshire resident ignored by a firm over a broken garage door.
Legal rules on neighbour cooking smells
In response to a homeowner whose details were supplied, Dunham explained that persistent cooking odours forced into a home and garden from a neighbour's extractor fan are not something residents must endure.
The reader reported that a neighbour installed a powerful cooker extractor fan with an outlet close to their property boundary. Whenever back doors or windows are opened, strong smells fill the house, and sitting in the garden becomes unpleasant, despite the neighbour attempting to redirect the air flow with a pipe.
Dunham stated that the law recognises this intrusion as a genuine grievance under the legal concept of private nuisance, which applies when property use causes an unreasonable and substantial interference with home enjoyment.
Dunham noted that "the courts have long accepted that noxious or persistent smells can amount to an actionable nuisance."
However, Dunham emphasised that "not every cooking smell qualifies," adding that the law expects a degree of give-and-take between neighbours because an occasional waft of dinner is part of normal life. He explained that "the question is one of degree: how strong, how frequent, how prolonged and how much it genuinely interferes with your everyday living."
Council abatement notices under environmental health laws
For householders facing regular odour intrusion, Dunham highlighted a free statutory remedy under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, under which smells can constitute a statutory nuisance.
He advised that the first and best step is contacting the local council's environmental health department. Council officers can investigate the site and issue an abatement notice requiring the neighbour to resolve the problem by repositioning or upgrading the extractor outlet, with Dunham noting that ignoring such a notice is a criminal offence.
Before taking formal steps, Dunham recommended attempting direct resolution, noting that the neighbour's previous effort to fit a pipe showed encouraging signs of goodwill. He advised asking them politely to reposition the outlet or install a carbon filter, while keeping a detailed diary of dates and times in case informal efforts fail.
Consumer rights for broken garage doors
Dunham also addressed a query from reader P.M. in Hampshire, who bought a garage roller door a year ago with a five-year warranty, while a summary headline noted a door bought a week ago failing to open.
The reader reported that the door had been broken for three weeks, leaving them unable to access their garage, while the seller refused to pick up phone calls, return messages, or answer WhatsApp communications.
Dunham reassured the reader that they have solid rights, stating that "that warranty is not your only safeguard and often not even your best one." He explained that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides statutory protections that cannot be sidestepped, requiring goods to be durable and of satisfactory quality.
He advised that a roller door failing after one year falls well short of reasonable expectations, giving the consumer a clear legal claim against the seller.
Repair deadlines and payment refund options
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, repairs must be carried out "within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience." Dunham stated that waiting three weeks without garage access while a company ignores communications comfortably exceeds what is reasonable, noting that being locked out is "precisely the kind of 'significant inconvenience' the act has in mind."
If a repair is not completed within a reasonable time, consumers become entitled to a replacement, a price reduction, or to reject the goods for a refund. Dunham advised the buyer to stop chasing by phone or WhatsApp and instead send formal written notice by email and post citing the legislation, setting a final deadline of 14 days to repair or replace before demanding a refund.
For buyers seeking financial recourse, Dunham highlighted payment fallbacks including Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act for credit card purchases, which makes card issuers jointly liable, and the chargeback scheme for debit card payments made within the past 120 days.
Readers with legal questions can contact Dean Dunham by email at [email protected] with brief details, though the Daily Mail and This is Money accept no legal responsibility for answers given in the column.
