Summary: The Council was at fault for its failure to consider if light disturbance into Mr X’s home was a statutory nuisance. Mr X said the light led to significant sleep disturbance. Poor complaint handling by the Council also caused him frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to remedy the injustice to him. The Council should also arrange to investigate if the light disturbance is a statutory nuisance.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to respond to complaints he made about light disturbances from a nearby housing complex owned by the Council. He said the light shone into his home causing sleep disturbance, and impacted local wildlife.

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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. Mr X complained about the exterior lights of Council owned housing. We cannot investigate complaints about the provision or management of social housing by a council acting as a registered social housing provider. (Local Government Act 1974, paragraph 5A schedule 5, as amended) This means I cannot investigate the actions or decisions the Council made about the lighting.
5. I can investigate the Council’s response to the light as a potential statutory nuisance.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Statutory nuisance

8. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA), councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’.
9. Activities a council might decide are a statutory nuisance includes artificial light from premises.
10. For the issue to count as a statutory nuisance, it must:

• unreasonably and substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of a home or other property; and/or
• injure health or be likely to injure health.

11. There is no fixed point at which something becomes a statutory nuisance. Councils rely on suitably qualified officers to gather evidence. Officers may, for example, ask the complainant to complete diary sheets, fit noise-monitoring equipment, or make site visits. Councils will sometimes offer an ‘out-of-hours’ service for people to contact, if a nuisance occurs outside normal working time.
12. Once evidence gathering is complete, a council will assess the evidence. It will consider matters such as the timing, duration, and intensity of the alleged nuisance. Officers will use their professional judgement to decide whether a statutory nuisance exists.
13. The law says a potential nuisance must be judged on how it affects the average person. Councils cannot take action to stop something which is only a nuisance to the complainant because they have special circumstances, such as a medical condition which makes them unusually sensitive.
14. Where the Council is the perpetrator of a statutory nuisance it cannot take action against itself. In this situation the complainant could consider action under Section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act.
15. Councils can decide to take informal action if the issue complained about is causing a nuisance but is not a statutory nuisance.

Artificial Light Nuisance

16. In 2015 the government published guidance on how councils should deal with complaints about artificial light nuisance. This says domestic security lights or decorative lights can cause a nuisance. It says councils can assess whether:
• it interferes with the use of a property
• whether it may affect health
• how it’s likely to affect the average person (unusual sensitivities are not included)
• how often it happens
• how long it lasts
• when it happens
• whether it’s in the town or country

The Council’s Policy

17. The Council says it may be able to investigate if a resident is disturbed by artificial light that is unreasonable and greatly interferes with the use or enjoyment of a person’s home. It gives an example of a security light shining into a bedroom affecting sleep.

What happened

18. The following is a summary of key events relevant to this complaint investigation.
19. Mr X made a complaint to the Council in March 2025. He said exterior lights on Council housing pointed horizontally into his first floor bedroom window, disturbing his sleep. He suggested the Council redirect the light beams, install motion sensors and reduce the number of hours the lights come on.
20. Mr X contacted the Council again in May 2025 as he had received no response. He also provided photos of the light shining into his home.
21. A Council officer visited in May 2025. The officer did not have the correct materials to alter the lights and so ordered the parts and arranged a further visit.
22. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in June 2025. The Council apologised for the frustration caused by the issues and by its delayed complaint response. It said an officer went to review the lights in May 2025 and arranged for another officer to install a time lock and to further investigate the brightness of the lights. The Council said it would continue to attempt to resolve the issue.
23. In response Mr X contacted the Council to suggest putting the lights on motion sensors and installing a shield to redirect the light beams. He also raised concern about the impact of the light on local wildlife.
24. Later in June 2025 two Council officers went to investigate the lights. The outcome of that visit is recorded as ‘materials required’.
25. Mr X made a further complaint to the Council in June 2025. He said the light beams continued to disturb his sleep and he was concerned about the impact on wildlife.
26. In August 2025 Mr X contacted the Council as he had received no response.
27. In September 2025 an officer went to review the lights but made no changes due to adverse weather.
28. The Council responded to Mr X using stage two of its complaints procedure in September 2025. The Council:
• Apologised for the delay in its complaint response and said this was due to the high volume of demand.
• Acknowledged his frustration and the impact the lights had on his well-being.
• Said the lighting was compliant with current regulations.
• Said a visit was planned for the end of September and the officer would provide feedback.
• Said there was no fault in how the Council managed the issue but acknowledged its fault in the delayed complaint response and offered him a financial remedy of £25.
29. The Council also provided a response to a Councillor enquiry to say it had arranged for electricians to carry out the required work, including changing the timer and considering different ways to reduce the light pollution.
30. At the end of September, the Council officers replaced the light sensors and timer mechanism and marked the job as complete. The Council said it had received no further reports of lighting issues since then.
31. In October 2025 the light timings were adjusted to be on from 6pm to 6am. Mr X said they continued to flash on and off during the night and were very bright in his bedroom.
32. Later in October 2025 the Council wrote to the Councillor again. It said it was still investigating the issue. It said a team leader would review a request for new lights but there was no date for when the lights would be changed.
33. In December 2025 another resident complained to the Council about lights on the building flickering and causing a disturbance to neighbouring properties. In its response the Council said an officer had visited to remedy the issue and no further action was needed.
34. In January 2026 another resident complained to the Council about lights on the building flashing continuously for a number of months. In response the Council said an officer had visited in January 2026 and had remedied the problem.
35. In April 2026 Mr X said the lights continued to shine intermittently during the night and the direction of the light beams had not changed.

Findings

36. Mr X repeatedly told the Council about light shining into his bedroom, disturbing his sleep and interfering with the enjoyment of his home. The Council did take action to try to address the issue by sending out Council officers to investigate the lights and adding a timer. But Mr X said this did not resolve the issue.
37. Under the Environmental Protection Act a statutory nuisance is one which substantially interferes with the enjoyment of a home. The Council’s policy gives the example of a security light shining into a person’s home as an example of an issue it may investigate.
38. Where a potential nuisance is identified councils have a duty to take reasonably practicable steps to investigate. They should record the complaint and contact the complainant to decide the steps to help identify whether the nuisance is enough to make it a potential statutory nuisance.
39. The Council could have used a light meter or other means to consider whether the light disturbance Mr X reported constituted a statutory nuisance. There is no evidence to show the Council took any steps to do so. This is fault and caused Mr X frustration.
40. If it had determined there was a statutory nuisance the Council could not have taken formal action against itself, but it could have taken informal action to resolve the situation.
41. Mr X said the light disturbance impacted his health and well-being. Whilst I recognise the disturbance caused Mr X distress, it is not possible to say, even on the balance of probabilities, if the light has caused or contributed to his health concerns.
42. In December and January other residents complained about light disturbance from the same lights. On both of these occasions the Council said an officer had visited to resolve the problem of flickering lights but in April Mr X said the lights continue to intermittently shine into his home during the night. The direction of the light beams has not been changed.

Complaint handling

43. The Council’s complaints procedure says it will respond to stage one complaints within 10 days. The Council took over two months to provide a stage one response. This delay is fault and caused Mr X frustration. The Council apologised for the delay.
44. Mr X made suggestions as to how the issues could be resolved. The Council has not acknowledged, considered or responded to these. Whilst this is not fault it did add to Mr X’s frustration.
45. The Councils’ complaints procedure says it will provide a stage two complaint response in 20 working days. The Council took three months to provide a response. This delay is fault and caused frustration to Mr X. The Council apologised for its delay and offered Mr X a financial remedy of £25.
46. The complaint response said it found no fault in how the Council managed the issue. This is inconsistent with its acknowledgement of the impact on Mr X’s well-being and that another site visit and further feedback was needed. The response left it for Mr X to follow this up. This response was poor. It offered no resolution to Mr X’s complaint, did not offer any consideration of statutory nuisance and did not acknowledge the six months that Mr X had been trying to resolve the issue. This is fault and caused frustration and uncertainty to Mr X.

Back to top

Action

47. Within one month of this decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr X and pay him £150 for the frustration and distress caused by its failure to consider whether the light disturbance was a statutory nuisance and for its poor complaint handling. This payment is inclusive of the £25 the Council previously offered.
2. Contact Mr X to discuss with him the ongoing problems he has with light disturbance and follow the guidelines to investigate if this is a statutory nuisance.
48. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

49. I find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman