Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action over nuisance from Mr X’s neighbour’s Christmas lights. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to accept that his neighbour’s Christmas lights were a statutory nuisance. He says the Council operates double standards because it served Mr X with an abatement notice following a complaint from the same neighbour about lighting affecting his home in 2021.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says his neighbour’s Christmas lights caused him to have problems with his vision after they were flashing in his room and affecting a medical condition. The Council’s officer visited the site but did not consider that the lights constituted a statutory nuisance.
6. Mr X believed he was being treated unfairly because the Council had previously taken enforcement action against him for light pollution causing statutory nuisance to the same neighbour. The Council told Mr X that each case is assessed on its own merits and the decision on whether it is a statutory nuisance is in the opinion of a qualified environmental health officer.
7. Mr X complained about the decision and asked for a second opinion. The Council says this was not possible because the lights had been removed at the end of the Christmas period by this time.
8. 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 when there is no fault. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions. In this case the Council’s Officer decided that the lights were not sufficient to present a statutory nuisance which it could reasonably expect to take abatement action over.
9. Mr X’s medical condition could not be taken into account in the assessment because the Environmental Protection Act 1990 says it must be considered in the context of an average person, in a reasonable state of good health and having a normal pattern of everyday activity. Sensitivity to a particular environmental factor cannot be considered.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take enforcement action over nuisance from Mr X’s neighbour’s Christmas lights. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman