The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a complaint about light pollution from a neighbouring property. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to properly investigate her complaint about disturbance from a neighbour’s flashing Christmas lights which were a disturbance at night time.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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) 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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X says she is disturbed by Christmas lights at a neighbouring property which affect her sleep as she is a shift worker. She complained to the Council and asked it to take action for statutory nuisance.
The Council’s environmental officer asked for access to the rooms affected so that she could assess the level of disturbance inside the rom and how it might affect the occupants and be prejudicial to health. Ms X would not agree to this assessment because of concerns about Covid-19. The Council would not accept her video records as sufficient because they had to be accurately assessed for a true understanding of the nuisance.
The Council concluded that there was insufficient evidence of a statutory nuisance for any abatement notice to be served. It offered other suggestions such as it contacted the neighbours about the issue and advised that Ms X could take her own action under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 by submitted her own evidence in a private action.
When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions. The Council carried out its duty to investigate but it has no duty to serve a notice if no statutory nuisance is established.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a complaint about light pollution from a neighbouring property. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman