Environment Agency

4. Mr O complains the EA incorrectly charged him £1,344 for its investigation after water from putting out a fire on a manure heap ran from a drain on his land into a watercourse in May 2025.

5. As a result, Mr O says he has experienced stress and anguish. He also says he had to pay £1,344 for an investigation and pollution which was not his fault.

6. As an outcome for his complaint, Mr O wants a financial remedy to cover the cost of the fine.

7. Mr O said people trespassed on his land in May 2025 when they started a fire on a manure heap. He contacted the Fire and Rescue Service who put the fire out. Mr O said that water they used to put out the fire escaped into a drain on his land which then entered a local watercourse.

8. The EA agreed that Mr O did not start the fire and the Fire and Rescue Service used the water which entered the water course. However, it said as the water ran off his land, the EA can charge him for its investigation.

13. 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.

14. The EA’s role is to protect and improve the environment. On its Gov.uk website, the EA explains it is responsible for: • water quality and resources • conservation and ecology.

15. The EA also has legal responsibilities regarding possible pollution. When reviewing Mr O’s complaint we have referred to ‘The Water Resources Act’ (the Act). Section 161 states:

(1) This section applies where it appears to the EA that any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter or any waste matter is or has been present in, or is likely to enter, any controlled waters.

(2) In a case where the matter appears to be or to have been present in the controlled waters, the EA shall be entitled to carry out works and operations for any of the following purposes—

(a)removing or disposing of the matter (b)remedying or mitigating any pollution caused by its presence in the waters; or (c)restoring (so far as it is reasonably practicable to do so) the waters, including any flora and fauna dependent on the aquatic environment of the waters, to their state immediately before the matter became present in the waters.

(3) In a case where the matter appears to be likely to enter the controlled waters, the EA shall be entitled to carry out works and operations for the purpose of preventing it from doing so.

(4) The EA shall be entitled to carry out investigations for the purpose of establishing any of the following—

(a)the nature of the matter, (b)the source of the matter; (c)the nature and effects of any pollution caused or likely to be caused by the presence of the matter; and (d)the identity of any responsible persons.

(5) Without prejudice to the power of the EA to carry out those investigations, the powers conferred by subsection (2) or (3) shall only be exercisable in a case where—

(a)the EA considers it necessary to carry out forthwith any works or operations falling within that subsection; or (b)it appears to the EA, after reasonable enquiry, that no responsible person can be found on whom to serve a works notice.

(6) In this section “responsible person” means a person who has caused or knowingly permitted the matter—

(a)to be present in the controlled waters; or (b)to be at a place from which it was likely, in the opinion of the EA to enter the controlled waters.

16. The above section 161 means that the EA will address pollution in controlled waters, like rivers or lakes. If harmful or polluting substances are present, or likely to enter these waters, the EA can act. It may remove or dispose of pollutants, reduce the damage caused, and try to restore the water and its dependent plants and animals to their original state as much as possible. If the pollutants are yet to enter the water, the EA can also act to prevent that from happening.

17. The Act refers to a ‘responsible person’ as someone who either caused the pollution or allowed the polluting matter to be placed where it could threaten controlled waters.

18. Section 161ZC of the Act says, ‘Where the [EA] carries out any works, operations or investigations under any of the powers conferred by section 161 or 161ZA it shall, subject to subsection (3), be entitled to recover the expenses reasonably incurred in doing so from any responsible person.'

19. This means that if the EA completes any investigations under section 161 or 161ZA, it can recover costs from any responsible person.

20. Mr O complained about the EA’s decision to charge him £1,344 for work it completed. The EA completed an investigation after water the Fire and Rescue Service used to put out a fire on a manure heap entered a nearby watercourse through a drain on Mr O’s land.

21. Mr O said the charge is unfair as he did not start the fire and he did the correct action in contacting the Fire and Rescue Service to put the fire out.

22. The EA said it agreed that Mr O was not responsible for starting the fire or for the fire water which entered a local brook. It said however that it is allowed to charge him for the investigation it carried out. The EA said this is because the fire water which came from Mr O’s land is a pollutant.

23. We have seen that during an investigation in May 2025, the EA confirmed that firewater entered a watercourse. It said it traced this firewater back to Mr O’s property and the fire which occurred on a manure heap. We know that having a fire break out on his land would have been very worrying for Mr O.

24. The EA then issued Mr O with an invoice of £1,344 for this investigation. After receiving this invoice, Mr O complained to the EA.

25. In the EA’s response, it said the location of Mr O’s manure heap does not comply with the Regulations. It referred specifically to section 9, paragraph 2, which states:

• ‘For agricultural land to which paragraph (1) does not apply, the land manager must ensure that any factors which mean there would be a significant risk of agricultural diffuse pollution are taken into account when deciding where to store organic manure’.

26. The EA said this was because Mr O had stored his manure heap uphill of a drain which connects directly to a watercourse. Its also said this location creates a significant risk of ongoing agricultural diffuse pollution.

27. Because of this, the EA also attended Mr O’s land in December 2025 and completed a farm inspection report. It also advised Mr O to complete some work to comply with the Regulations and to reduce the risk of future pollution. We can see Mr O completed this work on the day of the inspection.

28. The Act describes the legal obligations of the EA in investigating pollution and its powers to recover costs from a responsible person. The Act also states that the responsible person may not be the person who started the fire or put it out. In this case, ‘responsible’ refers to Mr O as the person who placed polluting matter on their land where it could threaten controlled waters.

29. We know that Mr O did not start the fire and acted commendably in calling the Fire and Rescue Service to put it out.

30. Based on the evidence and the relevant legislation, we have concluded that the EA acted appropriately and within its legal authority in conducting the investigation and charging Mr O for its costs. We have found no indications that the EA has acted wrongly on this matter and, as such, we will not be taking further action on this complaint.

31. We understand the fire caused Mr O significant distress and we are sorry this happened.

1. We have carefully considered Mr O’s complaint about the Environment Agency (the EA). We can see Mr O believes the EA unfairly charged him for an investigation it carried out. We are sorry to read that the issue he raised caused so much distress for Mr O.

2. Having considered the evidence available to us, and the guidance and legislation that set out how the EA should carry out its work, we have decided to take no further action. This is because we have not seen any indication that anything went wrong in the EA’s decision to charge Mr O for its investigation.

3. Complaints we receive give us valuable insight into the organisations we investigate, so we would like to thank Mr O for sharing his experience with us. Our statement will explain more about our decision.