The Environmental Protection Act 1990 empowers private individuals to bring prosecutions under section 82 for statutory nuisances such as damp, mould, noise, or offensive smells-particularly when local authorities have not taken action. Private prosecutions under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 have become an increasingly popular tool for tenants, neighbours and residents frustrated by statutory nuisances including damp, mould, noise, smoke and odours. A prosecutor owes duties to the court which go far beyond the obligations imposed on a party in civil litigation.
A section 82 prosecution begins with what appears to be a routine complaint: gathering evidence through photographs, witness statements, or expert assessments before submitting the claim to a magistrates’ court. However, once the case is filed, the complainant transforms into a prosecutor, subject to obligations far stricter than those of a civil plaintiff. The most significant of these is the duty of candour, which requires prosecutors to act as neutral officers of the court rather than advocates for their own position.
An individual claimant wants a specific result (repairs done, compensation, or a finding of guilt). The moment they step into the role of the prosecutor, they must detach themselves from purely personal motives. They owe the same duties to the court as a Crown Prosecutor. The proceedings are seen as a way of leveraging action quickly and offer a route to a court hearing without necessarily relying upon statutory authorities or third parties to take any decisive action.
It is an unfortunate fact that section 82 EPA cases often arise in circumstances where relationships have already broken down. There may well be a landlord-and-tenant dispute, a long-running neighbour disagreement that goes back many years, allegations of retaliatory conduct and/or previous litigation. In those circumstances there can be a temptation to present only the material that supports the prosecution.
Read Also: Curzon Cases Offer Key Lessons for CAAD Disputes
Failure to meet these standards carries serious consequences. If a court determines that a private prosecutor acted in bad faith or concealed relevant information, it may dismiss the case immediately. More severely, the prosecutor could face contempt of court charges for misleading the judge. The law does not distinguish between professional prosecutors and private individuals in this regard—the duty of candour applies equally to all.
For many facing the issues covered by the section, particularly litigants in person, section 82 EPA proceedings can appear at first sight to be a straightforward extension of a complaint process. The prospective litigant has experienced a problem, they have gathered evidence, and they want a court to intervene to stop the perceived nuisance.
Courts have occasionally intervened to clarify expectations. In one notable case, a magistrate dismissed a damp-related prosecution after determining that the private prosecutor had failed to disclose evidence suggesting the landlord had already taken remedial steps.
