The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council moving a streetlight near his property.
There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant an investigation. Even if there has been fault, the matter does not cause Mr X such significant injustice to justify investigating. We will not investigate complaints about a council’s complaint process where we are not pursuing the matter which gave rise to the complaint.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council: has failed to properly explain why it decided to move a streetlight to the edge of his property, outside his bedroom window; failed to let him know about its plan to move the streetlight before it did so; has refused to move the streetlight back to its previous location; failed to reply to his complaint with logical, consistent and correct information.
Mr X says the streetlight is imposing and right next to his property, with the light outside his bedroom window. He says no other light has been moved in the same way. Mr X wants the Council to move the streetlight away from his property, in line with the approach they have used elsewhere.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Mr X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
We can only go behind a council’s decision if there is evidence of fault in the process it followed which, but for that fault, would have resulted in a different decision. There is not enough evidence of such fault here.
In response to Mr X’s concerns, the Council explained it moved the streetlights back from the kerbside to reduce the possibility of damage from vehicles. Officers say they decided new streetlight locations, including the one nearest Mr X’s house, using a computer modelling system to achieve illumination for all the street’s residents and users in line with the relevant British Standard for road lighting design. Officers considered Mr X’s request for the streetlight to be moved again but refused as they considered the original decision to move it had achieved the required outcome for the street.
There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes here to warrant investigation. I recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision on the location of the streetlight near his house, and its further decision not to relocate it on his request. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
Mr X considers the Council should have told him about its plan to move the streetlight before it did so. It was not fault for the Council not to tell Mr X where it intended to relocate the streetlight. Local highways authorities are not required to notify residents about schemes on highway land.
Even if there had been fault by the Council in its process here, we would not investigate. Having a streetlight next to a property within a built-up residential area is not a significant personal injustice to the property’s owner. There is not enough evidence that the outcome of the Council’s decision about the streetlight results in a significant personal injustice to Mr X. He says the light is now near his bedroom window but does not describe what impact it has on him or his use of the room. In any event, the Council has offered to fit hoods or cowls to the streetlight, to reduce any impact from it. If Mr X considers such work would improve matters, he may wish to contact the Council.
Mr X says the Council did not properly respond to his complaints. We do not investigate complaints about a council’s internal complaint process in isolation, where we are not pursuing the core matter giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of public funds to do so. That limitation applies here, so we will not investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because: there is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant an investigation; and even if there has been fault, the matter does not cause Mr X a significant injustice justifying investigation; and we will not investigate complaints about a council’s complaint process where we are not pursuing the matter which gave rise to the complaint.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman