Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that wi-fi, emitted by the streetlights outside the complainant’s home, is affecting his health. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In addition, the complainant’s claim that his human rights have been breached are a matter for the courts and the Ombudsman could not achieve the outcome the complainant wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains that the streetlights outside his home are emitting wi-fi signals which affect his health. Mr X has been diagnosed with Electro-Magnetic Hypersensitivity. Mr X wants compensation and for the Council to remove the streetlights.

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 an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered email exchanges between Mr X and the Council. I also considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. The Council installed streetlights in Mr X’s road in 2017. It has not installed any other equipment since then.
5. Mr X contacted the Council to report that his health is being seriously affected by wi-fi signals emitted by streetlights outside his home. He gave the Council technical data about the emissions. He said the emissions, and the impact on his health, represent a breach of the Human Rights Act. He asked the Council to remove the lights. He also said the lights were not the appropriate type for his road.
6. In response the Council explained that its streetlights do not use wi-fi or 5G. It said the lights send data to a hub using radio signals and a mobile phone system via a sim card. It analysed the technical data provided by Mr X. It said it showed the signals were from a wi-fi system that the Council does not use and were from an extender used to boost wi-fi signals in the home. It suggested he speak to his neighbours to try to identity the source of the wi-fi signal. The Council explained that all its lights comply with EU and British standards and are suitable for his street. It declined to remove the lights.
7. Mr X disagrees with the response. He has repeated that the lights make him ill and he says the Council installed transmission boosters which also affect him. Mr X says the Council’s actions breach several aspects of the Human Rights and he has referred to the prohibition against torture. He says he has been forced to move out of his home. In one of his emails to the Council he said he wanted £1 million in compensation.

Assessment

8. I will not start an investigation for the following reasons.
9. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council responded appropriately by explaining the lights do not use wi-fi, comply with the UK standards and are suitable for his road. It analysed the technical data and explained that it showed that the signals were most likely coming from domestic homes. The fact that Mr X disagrees with the Council’s response does not mean the Council has done anything wrong. The Council also says it has not installed any transmission boosters.
10. It is not my role to decide if the lights are making Mr X ill. If Mr X does not accept the Council’s response, or if he wishes to pursue a breach of the Human Rights Act or a substantial claim for compensation, then he would need to do so through the courts. The Ombudsman is unable to determine personal injury claims.
11. Finally, I cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants. There is no evidence the lights emit wi-fi and I cannot tell the Council to remove the lights. That would be a decision for the Council. In addition, there are no grounds to ask the Council for compensation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. In addition, Mr X would need to pursue part of his complaint through the courts and I cannot achieve the outcome he would like.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman