Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not considering safety concerns related to telecommunications masts and its use of its vexatious complainant procedure. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council sent him a warning in line with its vexatious complainant procedure. Mr X also complains the Council has not properly considered concerns about potential health issues and incorrect safety certificates for telecommunications masts in his local area.

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

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

3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complains the Council has not considered concerns raised about potential health issues regarding the use of telecommunication masts in his local area. Mr X says the safety certificates for some masts are invalid.
7. There is not enough evidence of significant injustice to Mr X to warrant investigation. This is because any injustice caused by potential health impacts from radio waves or electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) from mobile phone technology is speculative.
8. Mr X also complains the Council sent him a warning letter in line with its vexatious complainant procedure. The Council explained it sent this warning because Mr X continued to send emails about the masts and the Council considered Mr X’s conduct had become unreasonable. The Council confirmed there were no contact restrictions in place.
9. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault. This is because the Council’s actions were in line with its policy. Further, this has not caused any significant injustice as the Council has only referred Mr X to its policy and advised that it would progress if his unreasonable contact continued.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. In addition, there is not enough evidence of significant injustice to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman