Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with reports about a possible statutory nuisance. This is because we are unlikely to find fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, has complained about how the Council dealt with his concerns about a security light which shines into his home. Mr X says the light prevents him from sleeping and is affecting his health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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.

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

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. Mr X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I have considered his comments in response.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body against a council’s decision. Instead, we consider if there was any fault with how a decision was made. Where a decision has been made in line with the correct procedure, taking account of the relevant evidence, the Ombudsman will generally not criticise the decision, even if the complainant does not agree with it.
8. Mr X is unhappy with how the Council has dealt with his concerns about the security light. He says the Council has not visited his home at night to assess the impact and it closed his case without properly looking into the issue.
9. The Council did consider the information Mr X provided to show the disturbance caused by the light and contacted Mr X’s neighbour. The Council’s environmental health officers also visited Mr X‘s home once the Covid-19 restrictions were lifted to check if the position of the light was as expected. However, officers decided the duration and frequency of the light disturbance was unlikely to cause a statutory nuisance against which it could take action. It also said the position of the light in relation to Mr X’s bedroom would cause minimal glare and was unlikely to cause unreasonable disturbance when triggered.
10. I understand Mr X disagrees, but the Council was entitled to use its professional judgement in this regard. As the Council properly considered whether the light disturbance amounted to a statutory nuisance, it is unlikely I could find fault.
11. Mr X has also complained about how the Council handled his complaint. He says it did not reply to all his correspondence and there were mistakes in its complaint responses. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the main issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman