Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about inadequate and faulty lighting in underpasses near his home. Further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council or achieve any more for Mr B.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr B, complains the subways near his home have repeated problems with broken lights. Mr B says the subways are unsafe and wants the Council to upgrade the lighting system. Mr B also complains the Council has delayed replying to his complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered the information provided by Mr B and the complaint correspondence between Mr B and the Council. I sent a draft decision to Mr B and invited comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B says there have been ongoing problems with faulty lights in the underpasses near his home. Mr B has complained to the Council and says it originally said it would replace the lights in the spring of 2018. But this work has not been completed and Mr B complains the Council has also failed to respond to his complaints. Mr B wants the Council to replace the lighting system because it is difficult to obtain replacement parts for the existing system.
5. In response to his complaints, the Council initially told Mr B it would replace the lighting system in one subway and continue to replace failed lighting tubes in the other. The Council told Mr B it did not have the resources to replace both sets of lights and it had to prioritise its spending. In its final response to Mr B’s complaint, the Council has now told him it has raised work orders to replace both sets of lights and it hopes to complete this work by the end of the summer.
6. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because the Council has now agreed to replace the lights. Further consideration of the complaint would therefore not achieve any more for Mr B. If the Council had decided not to replace the lights, it is unlikely the Ombudsman would have investigated the complaint. It is for the Council to decide how to prioritise work required across its highway network. In this case, the Council explained to Mr B it has 100 underpasses to maintain and it did not originally consider there was a high priority for the works Mr B required. Further consideration of a complaint about how the Council made that decision would be unlikely to find fault.
7. Mr B has also complained about delays by the Council in responding to his complaint. The Ombudsman has a general discretion whether to investigate a complaint. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate a council’s complaints handling as a separate matter when the Ombudsman is not investigating the matter that led to the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because further consideration of the complaint is unlikely to find fault by the Council or achieve any more for Mr B.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman