Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a lamppost in front of her property. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. The action which connected the Council’s placement of the lamppost to Mrs X’s claimed injustice is Mrs X’s decision to buy her house in 2018. The Ombudsman could not therefore say the Council caused Mrs X an injustice, and an investigation is not warranted.

The complaint

1. Mrs X’s complaint relates to a lamppost on the pavement outside her house. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. failed to anticipate the need for her property to have unobstructed vehicle access in the future when it fitted and then replaced the lamppost;
2. failed to give legitimate reasons why it did not relocate the lamppost in 2017;
3. unreasonably expects Mrs X to fund any works to relocate the lamppost.
2. Mrs X says the lamppost’s current location prevents her from having full vehicular access to her property. She says it increases the risk of an accident as she moves on and off the driveway.
3. Mrs X wants the Council to pay for the relocation of the lamppost, to the place on the pavement at the corner of her property boundary.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

5. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mrs X;
• viewed the location using online maps;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mrs X to reply.

Back to top

What I found

7. The lamppost in front of Mrs X’s house has been there since 1988. Mrs X bought the house in 2016. A previous owner had installed hardstanding and removed part of the front wall. A portion of the wall behind the lamppost remains. Mrs X says that wall is in a poor state of repair, and wants to remove it. But the lamppost would obstruct the part of her drive which is currently behind the final stretch of wall. It is located about one third along the boundary between Mrs X’s front hardstanding and the pavement.
8. The action which connects the Council’s decision on where to place the lamppost to Mrs X’s claimed injustice was her decision to buy her house in 2016. The Ombudsman could not therefore say the Council caused Mrs X an injustice, and an investigation is not warranted.
9. I have not seen enough evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decision that it will not fund the relocation of the lamppost. The Council considered Mrs X’s request. But officers have reached the view there is insufficient public benefit from it doing and funding the works to justify that expense coming from public funds. That is a merits judgement officers are entitled to make, and I have not seen evidence their decision involved fault. I recognise Mrs X disagrees with the decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. The Council replaced the original lamppost in 2017, siting the new one in the same location. Mrs X believes the Council was wrong to put the new lamppost in the same place. She says the Council should have foreseen her or another residents’ future need for it to be moved to help with vehicle access. She says this because many other nearby properties have also installed off-road parking. I do not consider it is a reasonable expectation that the Council should have pre‑empted Mrs X or another resident wanting the lamppost moved, and it is not fault that it did not do so. Even if Mrs X asked the Council to move the lamppost before it was replaced in 2017, officers would have been entitled to require her to fund the additional costs incurred by moving it.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in how it has responded to Mrs X’s request to move the lamppost, or in its decision not to fund the works;
• it was Mrs X’s decision to buy her house which created the link between the Council’s choice of location for the lamppost, and to the impacts of that Council choice;
• the Ombudsman could not therefore say the Council caused Mrs X an injustice, so an investigation is not justified.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman