Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s refusal to re-site a streetlight which she says obstructs her driveway. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains about the Council refusing to replace a street lighting column which she says is restricting access to her driveway. She says the Council originally told her it would deal with the matter but has now told her it is the developer’s responsibility.

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 all the information which Miss X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response and Miss X has been given the opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Miss X bought a house which has a driveway. The access to the driveway is restricted even to a small car by the proximity of a lighting column in the footway outside. The house was part of a new development and Miss X complained to the Council asking for the lamp to be re-sited further away from the access.
5. Initially the Council told her its street works contractor would deal with the problem. However, when the site was inspected the lighting column was found to be in the correct position which was agreed with the developer at the planning stage. The Council provided the infrastructure before the developer completed Miss X’s home. It appears that the developer did not allow sufficient room for vehicles to access the driveway when the property was constructed.
6. The Council told Miss X that in the circumstances the developer would have to arrange for the lamp to be re-sited at his own cost. It could not justify moving the infrastructure at public expense when the developer was responsible for selling the property with limited access.
7. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. In this case the Council gave Miss X a reasonable explanation of the situation and there was no fault in the siting of the street furniture.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman