Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to resolve problems with a streetlight. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. We will not investigate the Council’s handling of a Subject Access Request because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to decide this complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to resolve problems with a streetlight outside his property. He says the light affects his sleep, and the Council has not properly addressed his concerns. He wants the Council to remove or replace the streetlight column and provide a financial remedy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

5. We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. In August 2025, Mr X told the Council street lighting was wrongly angled towards his property, causing light to enter it.
9. In response to Mr X’s concerns, the Council assessed the street lighting. It straightened the lantern and resecured the bracket.
10. Mr X contacted the Council again in October 2025. The Council accepts it did not respond to the report. It apologised and said it would realign the light and install a shield to limit the light entering his property.
11. In January 2026, the Council assessed the street lighting again. It took action to reduce the light spill. This included fitting shields around the lantern and checking the streetlight was secure. Mr X reported the matter again and said the shield did not reduce the light intrusion.
12. The Council ordered and fitted a larger shield. Mr X said the lighting was too bright. The Council explained that most of the light had been limited and that it could not angle the lantern further away because of the design. It explained why it did not consider replacing the column reasonable or practical.
13. The evidence shows the Council considered the position of the streetlight and the light entering Mr X’s property. It straightened the lantern, fitted shields and explained why it could not angle the lantern further away and why it did not consider replacing the column reasonable or practical.
14. The Council’s investigation has considered all the relevant information and made decisions based on the professional judgement of its officers. These are decisions the Council is entitled to make, and I have found insufficient evidence of fault in how they were made to justify further investigation. Mr X may not agree with the Council’s actions, but we will not investigate. We have no power to overturn its decision or require it to replace the streetlight column. We could not achieve anything more for Mr X.
15. I recognise there was some delay by the Council in responding to Mr X’s reports. However, I do not consider further investigation of this matter would achieve anything more.
16. Mr X also says the Council has failed to comply with his Subject Access Request (SAR). The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) considers complaints about data protection legislation and subject access request responses. It is not for the Ombudsman to trespass on the ICO’s role. If Mr X considers the Council has not complied with his SAR, the ICO is better placed to consider a complaint about this. In the event Mr X has already complained to the ICO, we will not separately investigate the matter.
17. Mr X is also unhappy with the Council’s complaint handling. It is not a proportionate use of our resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling or ancillary matters when we are not investigating the substantive issues.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and we could not achieve anything more for Mr X. We will not investigate the Council’s handling of a SAR request because it is best considered and decided by the ICO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman