Summary: Mr X complains about high levels of light intrusion from a street lamp positioned outside his mother’s (Mrs Y’s) property. He says this causes her distress. He also complains about delays in the Council’s complaints process. The Council took appropriate action to reduce the level of light intrusion to within the recommended limits. However, there was some delay within the process. It has agreed to apologise to Mr X and his mother for the delay and pay Mrs Y £150 to acknowledge the distress caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about light intrusion from a street lamp positioned outside his mother’s (Mrs Y’s) property. He says the street lamp causes an unacceptable level of light intrusion into her property, which is causing her distress. He wants the Council to move the street lamp or take action to reduce the light intrusion.
2. He also complains about delays in the Council’s complaints process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read Mr X’s complaint and spoke with him about it on the phone.
7. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it sent me.
8. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered their comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

9. Councils are responsible for the erection and maintenance of street lighting in their area.
10. Councils are expected to meet the relevant British Standards when installing new street lighting. British Standard (BS) 5489 is the Code of Practice for the design of road lighting. The Code says as much as possible, lamp posts should be aligned with property boundaries and positioned at the rear of the footpath. This is to provide adequate access for pedestrians and reduces the risk of accidental damage by vehicles.
11. Councils should also consider the need to avoid unacceptable light intrusion from street lamps. The Institute of Lighting Professionals has introduced specific guidance notes for the reduction of intrusive light (ILP guidance notes). This recommends light intrusion into windows in a suburban area should be no more than 10 lux before curfew and 2 lux after curfew. Sheffield City Council’s curfew is midnight.
12. The ILP guidance notes also recommend various ways of reducing light intrusion such as using shields and hoods. The recommended light limitations are for guidance only, but the Council says its contractors make every effort to comply with this guidance.
13. Councils must have corporate complaints procedures to support the effective management of complaints. Sheffield City Council’s policy has a problem-solving phase and an investigation phase. If it investigates a complaint, the Council aims to provide a response within 28 days. If the complainant remains dissatisfied, they can request a review. The review is the last phase of the Council’s process. If they remain dissatisfied after the review, complainants are advised they can bring the complaint to the relevant ombudsman or external body.

What happened

14. During 2018, Council contractors carried out work to upgrade the street lamps in Mrs Y’s area.
15. The Council developed a lighting design plan to ensure the upgraded street lighting complied with the BS Code of Practice. The plan showed the position of the current street lamps and the planned positioning of the new street lamps on Mrs Y’s road. The Council says to comply with the Code, the street lamp outside Mrs Y’s and her neighbour’s property was moved back away from the kerb to the boundary of the properties.
16. The Council contractor replaced the street lamp. In accordance with the design plan, it moved the position of the street lamp back from the roadside to the rear of the footpath, by the boundary of the two properties. They installed a new lamp post and street lamp.
17. In July 2018, Mr X complained to the Council on his mother’s behalf. He said the new street lamp was too bright and shone too much light into her home.
18. The Council acknowledged his complaint the next day. It said it would investigate his complaint and carry out a lighting level test at Mrs Y’s property. It said it would reply to him within four weeks.
19. Three weeks later, the Council emailed Mr X. It said it had not yet completed the lighting level test. It said it would respond to him by 20 September 2018.
20. In late August, the Council completed the lighting level test. The results showed the lighting level at the property before midnight was 9 lux, which is within the recommended range. The lighting level after midnight was recorded as 6.8 lux, above the recommended level of 2 lux or below.
21. In September 2018, the Council emailed Mr X. It told him the lighting level test showed the level of light intrusion at Mrs Y’s property was above the recommended range. It said it would fit a shield to the street lamp within four weeks.
22. The Council fitted the shield eight and a half weeks later.
23. Mr X contacted the Council again. He said the shield had not made a difference and there was still too much light shining into Mrs Y’s property. He said this meant she was struggling to sleep and felt unsafe at night.
24. A few days later the Council acknowledged his complaint and said it would complete a further lighting level test at Mrs Y’s property. It said it would respond to him within 28 days.
25. During the next two weeks, Mr X made several calls to the Council chasing progress.
26. The Council completed the lighting level test in November 2018 and found the lighting level after midnight was still too high. It made further arrangements to tilt the angle of the street lamp.
27. This was carried out soon after, and 10 days later the Council re-tested the lighting level after midnight. The tests showed a reduction in the light level at the property both before and after midnight. The light level after midnight was recorded as 1.7 lux.
28. At the end of November 2018, the Council wrote to Mr X to tell him that the level of light intrusion was now within the recommended range. Because of this, the Council considered no further action was required.
29. Mr X was not happy with the response and asked for a review of his complaint. He said the Council’s response had not fully addressed his concerns. The Council acknowledged his request and said it would review his complaint and respond within four weeks.
30. In December 2018, the Council sent him its review response. It said the street lamp had been designed and installed to light the highway to the required standards. It said it did not feel further action was required. It said the previous street lamp had been positioned further down the street, but to ensure the carriageway was lit to the required standard, it had been re-located to outside Mrs Y and her neighbour’s properties.
31. Mr X was not happy with this response and brought his complaint to us.
32. In its response to our enquiries, the Council said during its review of this case it had found an error in the investigation review letter sent to Mr X. It said the street lamp had not been re-located and had always been outside Mrs Y’s and her neighbour’s properties. It apologised to Mr X for this error and any confusion caused. It also acknowledged there was some delay with the initial light level test and the fitting of the lamp shield. It has offered Mr X and Mrs Y an apology for these delays.

Analysis

33. When the Council developed its lighting design plan, it decided to move the position of the street lamp away from the edge of the pavement to the boundary of Mrs Y and her neighbour’s properties. It made this decision to comply with the BS code of practice and is not at fault for making this decision.
34. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council took light level readings at Mrs Y’s property. When these readings showed the level of light intrusion was too high, it took appropriate steps to reduce this by fitting a shield and tilting the angle of the street lamp.
35. When it re-tested the light levels, the readings showed that these actions had reduced the level of light intrusion and it was now within the recommended range.
36. We cannot criticise a decision that has been made without fault in the process. The Council considered the guidance and took action to reduce the identified light intrusion into Mrs Y’s property, until the levels were within the recommended limits. The Council has followed the process we would expect and is not at fault.
37. The Council took five weeks to respond to Mr X’s initial complaint due to a delay in completing the light level test. This is a week longer than stated in its policy, but it kept him appropriately informed of the delay.
38. The Council took three months after the initial complaint to fit the lamp shield and even after the shield was fitted, the light levels remained above the recommended limit. The contractor then had to adjust the lamp to reduce the light intrusion to acceptable levels. Mr X first complained about the light intrusion in July 2018. It took four months overall to resolve this. This is fault. The Council has offered Mr X an apology for the delays. However, Mrs Y was experiencing higher than recommended levels of light intrusion into her property during this time. Mr X says because of this she struggled to sleep and was caused some distress.
39. The Council has identified an error in its review response letter and offered Mr X and Mrs Y an apology for this. This is an appropriate remedy.

Agreed action

40. Within one month of the final decision, the Council will:
• Write to Mr X to apologise to him and Mrs Y for the delays, and for the error identified in the Council’s review response letter;
• Pay Mrs Y £150 to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused by the delays.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have completed my investigation. I have found evidence of fault by the Council. It has agreed actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman