Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to take sufficient action to investigate his complaint about unspecified electronic signals or beams which are entering his home. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains that the Council will not take action to identify and stop electronic signals or beams from entering his home. He says his main concern is about fire and also the long-term effects of such signals. He wants the Council to obtain equipment which can detect these signals and identify the source so that they can be prevented.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Mr X has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says his home has been affected by unspecified signals or beams which he says are electrical or static and which he believes may be a fire or long-term health risk. He believes the signals may come from a neighbouring property. He asked the Council to investigate and it offered him sound recording equipment and diary sheets. It also advised his social housing landlord who checked the electrical equipment in the neighbouring property.
5. Mr X says the Council has not taken his complaint seriously and it should obtain equipment for monitoring the signals. The Council says that its officers are trained to identify statutory nuisance and that it cannot serve an abatement notice where no categorised nuisance can be identified. Abatement notices carry a right of appeal to the courts and so must be supported by sufficient evidence to warrant this action.
6. The Council has advised Mr X that he should seek medical advice about his hearing and that it cannot take any action against his neighbour where it has no evidence.
7. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether there is a nuisance present, that is the role of the Council. 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 a council’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.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman