Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue an abatement notice about a light shining into Mr X’s house. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision not to issue an abatement notice for light shining into his house from neighbouring business premises. He says the light shines into bedrooms and prevents family members from sleeping and causes them headaches.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
6. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, councils have a duty to take reasonable steps to investigate potential ‘statutory nuisances’. In this case the Council investigated Mr X’s reports, considered the diary sheets he provided and made several site visits to view the light and its impact on Mr X’s property. Based on the evidence, it does not consider the light a statutory nuisance and I have seen no basis for us to question its decision. A further investigation by us is therefore unlikely to achieve the outcome Mr X wants.
7. The Council accepts it did not update Mr X as regularly as it should have, but we could not say this altered the outcome of its investigation or caused Mr X significant injustice given its decision that the light does not amount to a statutory nuisance.
8. If Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision, he may wish to seek legal advice about taking his own private action against those responsible for the light in the magistrates’ court. If the court decides the light does amount to a statutory nuisance, it can order the person or people responsible to take action to stop or limit it.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault affecting the Council’s decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman