Chichester District Council (19 003 514)

Category : Transport and highways > Street furniture and lighting

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 06 Feb 2020

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mr F’s complaint of it failing to provide, maintain, and repair street lighting on a neighbouring road for more than 12 months. Repairs were not done following his reports for periods of up to 6 months. Nor was he kept informed about progress on them. The Council did not explore the possibility of using alternative providers. The agreed action remedies the avoidable injustice caused.

The complaint

  1. Mr F complains the Council failed to provide, maintain, and repair street lighting on a neighbouring road for more than 12 months; as a result, stretches of the road up to 100 metres were left without lighting for up to 6 months at a time which was a safety concern.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  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’. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered all the information provided by Mr F, the notes I made of the telephone conversation I had with him, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent him.
  2. I sent a copy of my initial draft, and then revised draft decision, to Mr F and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr F complains about street lighting on a nearby road on to which his property backs. He reported faulty lighting to the Council. He complains street lights were not repaired for periods of up to 6 months. During this time, he states more than one light at a time needed repairing. These failures meant stretches of road up to 100 metres were left without lighting. He believes the problem is the Council refuses to replace old street lighting. In addition, he believes the Council has no proper systems for their maintenance and repair. These failures are a security and safety concern to residents and road users.
  2. The Council explained the road Mr F complains about is unadopted. This means it is not the responsibility of the highway’s authority (the County Council). Nor is the highways authority keen to adopt it. The Council is responsible for 11 lights on this road. Two of them had problems. In response to my initial draft decision, Mr F noted a third light remained lit during the day for long periods. The Council said it inspects the lights monthly during winter and, outside that period, on an ad-hoc basis.
  3. The Council explained it put the repair and maintenance of all street lights out to tender in early 2018. It received no interest, so discussed the potential for 2 contractors, Company X and Company Y, to do the work.
  4. Company X agreed to do repair work only, the terms of which were set out in a letter it sent the Council on 29 March. Company X was happy to do the work based on the pricing structure it supplied at the end of the letter. The Council said the letter did not provide the full standard terms and conditions to allow it to draw up a final contract. These were not provided despite asking Company X for them. The Council said this meant it had no contract with Company X.
  5. Company X agreed to keep to the timescale set out in its letter although the Council claims it was aware it might not be able to meet it. As there was only 1 light out at any time, and the Council is a small customer of Company X, the Council explained this work was not a priority for Company X as there were 11 other nearby working street lights. In response to my enquiries, the Council said Company X provides a quicker response where there is an emergency.
  6. The Council confirmed its arrangement with Company X is for it to service and repair the lights but the works themselves have no time target. It would not pay Company X if the works completed were unsatisfactory. The Council acknowledged Company X said its response turnaround was longer than under the initial tender documents. The Council accepted works have taken longer than expected to complete by Company X but, the works were not classed as emergencies.
  7. In its stage 1 response to Mr F, the Council also accepted several months passed without resolution of his report before an electrician inspected the light.
  8. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided the following information:

2018

  • 29 March: Company X gave the Council a quote for the maintenance and repair of external lighting within the Council’s car parks (with 200 lights) and 25 street lights. It set out what it agreed to do which included: a) bulk lamp change at the start of the contract; and b) 10 working days maximum response to reported lighting failures.
  • 29 June: An invoice from Company X which included a street repair near Mr F’s home.
  • 30 August: Mr F reported a faulty light.
  • 10 November: Company X repaired the light reported.

2019

  • 14 January: Mr F reported another faulty light (column 9), saying it had not worked since before Christmas.
  • 15 January: The Council chased Company X about outstanding repairs and added Mr F’s latest report for repair. The email wanted an update and said repairs were, ‘going on for some time’ and that it was, ‘frustrating we can only tell the public we have ordered the works and chasing for it to be completed’.
  • 12 March: The Council chased for a response.
  • 26 March: Mr F told the Council about another light in need of repair.
  • 27 March: The Council received an invoice from Company X for a replacement lantern near Mr F’s road
  • April: Company X replied giving a cost and time estimate for each light reported. Later that month, the Council agreed the costs for repairing the light. Company X sent a request to a subcontractor for a quote. Later that month, the Council chased Company X on 2 separate occasions.
  • May: Company X chased the subcontractor who said there was more work needed than initially thought. Company X would need to re-visit the light. The Council emailed Company X again the same month saying the light was urgent.
  • June: Mr F contacted the Council reporting column 9 was still broken along with another light. The Council again chased Company X who replied saying the light lantern was beyond economic repair and quoted for its replacement. The Council accepted the quote the same day.
  • July: The Council asked about progress several times this month.
  • August: Company X confirmed works were completed on the lights Mr F reported.
  1. The Council explained a parking management scheme was proposed by the County Council which would need the adoption of the road to meet highway standards. The County Council will consult on the scheme over the next few months. The outcome will, therefore, determine if the road is adopted which might take place in Spring/Summer 2020.

Analysis

  1. I found fault on this complaint and in reaching this conclusion, took the following into account:
      1. Company X sent the Council a quote for the maintenance of its external lighting on a follow-on 3-year agreement. The quote states it was subject to its ‘general terms and conditions set out on the Forms attached’. In response to my initial draft decision, the Council confirmed it never received them. Company X said until it prepared a contract, it was happy to work according to the quote. While the Council intended to enter in to a formal contract, this did not prove possible despite its efforts to do so.
      2. The Council says it asked Company X for its standard terms and conditions but, received no reply. As noted, the Council confirmed it never received these despite requests.
      3. While the Council accepted the quote, Company X never prepared and formally entered in to a contract about it. The quote was not, therefore, converted in to a formal contract between both parties. The Council says its requests for repair were done on an ad hoc basis.
      4. In response to my draft decisions, the Council said Company X told officers during a telephone call it had a level 2 priority. This meant it would prioritise the work of other contractors over works required by the Council unless urgent. The Council did not send a copy of the record of this call.
      5. Mr F’s reported a broken light on 30 August 2018 which was repaired on 10 November. Even if works were done on an ad hoc basis, 3 months is a long time for a light repair. During this time, I saw no evidence of the Council proactively keeping Mr F informed about progress on his report.
      6. Mr F made a further report about another broken light on 14 January 2019. This was repaired in July about 6 months later. The Council again pointed out the contract for the works was never agreed by both sides. An officer accepted the time taken was too long but, confirmed chasing Company X monthly from March. The officer pointed out Company X uses subcontractors to carry out the work. This meant when the Council chased Company X, it had to chase the subcontractor in turn. The evidence shows the Council chased Company X about carrying out the works.
      7. I saw no evidence of the Council keeping Mr F informed about progress on this report. I accept I may not have seen every piece of correspondence between Mr F and the Council, but I can only reach a decision based on the evidence provided. The failure to keep him updated is fault. In response to my initial draft decision, the Council pointed out it would be operationally demanding to maintain an ongoing dialogue with customers about progress on works ordered and carried out. It went on to explain that after internal discussions, it agreed it could use its case management system to create events which update the customer.
      8. In response to my initial draft decision, the Council also said it offered him the opportunity, when it sent its stage 2 response, to be kept updated. It received no response from him. It sent its stage 2 response in May 2019. This means the Council failed to give him the option of asking for updates, if they were not routinely given, before that date. The failure to provide updates, explain whether they were given routinely or not, and failing to give him the option sooner to receive them, is fault.
      9. It is clear from correspondence between the Council and Company X that officers were increasingly frustrated with the response times and poor communication from Company X. An officer threatened to find an alternative provider to carry out repairs in August 2019 but there is no evidence showing the Council reviewed the situation and explored whether it needed to look for alternative contractors. I consider this failure is also fault.
  2. I am satisfied the fault identified caused Mr F an avoidable injustice. The caused some distress as he reasonably expected the Council to act promptly on his reports. In addition, the delay and failure to keep him updated caused some frustration.

Agreed action

  1. I took account of our guidance for remedies.
  2. I also took account of Mr F failing to respond to the Council’s point in May 2019 which told him to get in touch if he wanted updating about progress on his reports.
  3. The Council will, within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint, take the following action:
      1. Send Mr F a written apology for the delayed repairs, failing to update him about progress on his reports, and failing to explore the option of alternative providers;
      2. Review the options the Council has for using a different contractor to carry out repairs; and
      3. Take steps to ensure those reporting repairs are given updates on their reports until works are done.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. The Ombudsman found fault on Mr F’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the avoidable injustice this caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings