Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his reports about his neighbour’s outside light, how it did not explain why a local councillor did not reply to him about it, and how its officers responded to his complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes regarding the light, nor in officers not explaining the councillor’s lack of response, to warrant us investigating. The time taken before Environmental Health officers’ involvement did not cause sufficient significant personal injustice to him to justify an investigation. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X’s neighbour fitted a light on their garage, facing his property, several years ago. Mr X complains the Council:
1. failed to visit to deal with the nuisance from the neighbour’s light for 18 weeks;
2. failed to acknowledge his lawful right to peaceful enjoyment of his home;
3. failed to explain why one of the local councillors did not reply when he copied them into his concerns;
4. did not properly investigate at both stages of its complaint process.
2. Mr X says he had the discomfort of the light shining into his property for 18 weeks. He wants a re-examination of the Council’s investigation, plus compensation for the 18 weeks of discomfort from the light and for his time and trouble pursuing the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. We may only go behind a council decision where there has been fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace the properly made decision of an officer with our or anyone else’s opinion.
7. Mr X told the Council his neighbour’s outside light has been there many years as it was installed before ‘permitted development’ regulations were introduced to the planning system. This happened in 2013, with the latest update being in 2015. A Council planning officer visited Mr X soon after he first complained in summer 2023. Officers explained to Mr X that if the light has been in place since before permitted development came in, it would be immune from all planning enforcement because over four years had passed. As they decided they could take no action under planning rules, they referred the matter to the Council’s Environmental Health (EH) officers to consider it as a possible nuisance.
8. An EH officer visited Mr X’s house in July. This was their assessment of the effects of the light on Mr X’s peaceful enjoyment of his property, under their EH remit to consider light nuisance. After the visit, the Council determined the neighbour’s light was intrusive but that its impact did not meet the threshold of a statutory light nuisance against which they could take further action. Officers wrote to Mr X’s neighbour to advise of this and the neighbour moved the light. Mr X says this partially fixed the problem.
9. When the EH officer visited the site and assessed the situation, they noted the light’s location and its impacts on Mr X’s property whenever he did not have his window blinds closed. Officers took the view that they should take the informal action of writing to the neighbour because of the level of light intrusion, but that its impact was insufficient to warrant them taking formal action.
10. Both the planning and EH officers gathered the appropriate information to make their professional judgement decisions, decisions they were entitled to make. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision‑making processes here to warrant us investigating. We recognise Mr X may disagree with their decisions on what actions were required in response to the impact of the light on him and his property. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
11. The Council’s planning officers’ response did not involve delay. But it took about 18 weeks for EH officers to respond to Mr X’s reports. We recognise this period before the Council contacted his neighbour and they moved the light would have been frustrating for Mr X. But we will not investigate this issue further. Mr X had tolerated the light’s presence in some form for many years previously. During the 18-week period, it was possible for Mr X to mitigate the effect of the light by using his window blinds. The level of personal injustice to him stemming from the delay complained of here is insufficiently significant to justify us investigating.
12. Mr X copied in a local councillor when he reported the light and considers the Council should explain why that councillor did not reply to him. Councillors are responsible for their own actions, in line with the relevant code of conduct. It is not for Council officers to answer for or explain the actions, or inactions, of elected Members. It was not fault for officers to not do so here, so we will not investigate this part of the complaint. If Mr X wishes to complain about the councillor, this would be a separate conduct complaint. He may raise this with the councillor first, to give them opportunity to reply. If he remains dissatisfied, Mr X may then refer the matter to the Council’s Monitoring Officer for their consideration.
13. Mr X complains about the Council’s complaint responses. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issue which gave rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes to warrant us investigating; and
• the time taken before the EH officers’ involvement did not cause a sufficient significant personal injustice to him to justify an investigation; and
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council not explaining his councillor not responding to his concerns to warrant an investigation; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman