Summary: Mr X complains about the information the Council provided about the upgrades of streetlights to LED lights. He says the Council misled him and did not tell him the lighting system would use the existing 3G/4G network to operate. He also complains the lamppost was still sending out wireless signals despite the Council removing the wireless transmitter. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the information the Council provided about the upgrades of streetlights to LED lights. He says the Council misled him in 2018 when he asked if the new LED lights would use wireless technology. He says the Council did not tell him the LED lighting system would use the existing 3G/4G network to operate. Mr X says the Council told him the wireless transmitter had been removed but he says the lamppost is still sending out wireless signals. Mr X also complains about the Council’s complaint handling.

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’. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I spoke with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
6. I made enquiries with the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. I sent a draft decision to Mr X and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Council’s complaints procedure

8. The Council has a three stage complaints procedure.
9. Stage one – the complaint is sent to the head of the service being complained about. The Council will acknowledge the complaint and will investigate the complaint. The Council aims to reply within 10 working days. If the reply will take longer, the Council will contact the complainant to explain the reason for the delay and let them know when they might expect to receive a reply.
10. Stage two – the complaint can be escalated to stage two if the complainant is not satisfied with the response. The complaint will be sent to a director who will decide who is most appropriate to deal with it. The Council aims to reply within 10 working days.
11. Stage three – the complainant may refer the complaint to the chief executive if they are not satisfied with their stage two complaint response. The chief executive will consider whether the complaint has been dealt with properly. If they feel the complaint has not been dealt with properly, they will refer it back to the service manager or director to reconsider. Alternatively, the chief executive may suggest a solution. There are no timescales for when a stage three response should be provided by.

What happened

12. In October 2018, the Council sent a letter to Mr X to advise of street lighting upgrade works, due to take place near his property. The letter noted the work would consist of replacing the lanterns with newer LED lanterns. It also noted the streets lights were to be replaced on a like for like basis. The Council’s letter included a link to its website and the Council’s customer service contact number.
13. The Council’s website provided more information about the street lighting replacement works that were not included in its letter. It highlighted the new LED lighting would have a new central management system (CMS), controlled by a wireless communication system.
14. Mr X submitted a freedom of information (FOI) request asking the Council for more information about the street lighting replacement works. The Council responded to the request in December 2018.
15. In the Council’s FOI response, the Council highlighted the CMS was “considered an inherently low power wireless device when compared with devices such as mobile phones or Wi-Fi hotspots”. The Council also said “as with all wireless device, their operation is tightly regulated by Ofcom…”
16. The Council’s response does not specifically state the CMS would use the existing 3G/4G network to operate.
17. Mr X explained his technical knowledge was limited and he felt the Council was emphasising the CMS technology was different to WiFi and mobile phone technology. He said he was satisfied with the Council’s response because of this.
18. The Council completed the works to the lamppost near to Mr X’s property in December 2018.
19. In November 2019, Mr X made a complaint to the Council as he was suffering from ill health from the wireless transmissions coming from the lamppost near his property. The Council acknowledged the complaint and advised Mr X it was seeking advice on how to progress the issue from its public health and legal team. Mr X declined an offer from the Council to meet. Mr X said he declined this as he was unsure of the reason for wanting the meeting and that he was already seriously unwell.
20. In December 2019, Mr X asked the Council to respond to his complaint at stage two of its complaint procedure as he had yet to receive a response to his complaint. The Council officer dealing with the complaint wrote to Mr X and explained he was still waiting for professional advice from the other Council departments before he could respond to the complaint. The officer apologised for the time taken to resolve the complaint. The officer did not provide Mr X with an approximate date for when he would receive a response.
21. In mid December, the Council told Mr X it would remove the telecell wireless transmitter from the lamppost near his property. This was 10 working days after the request to escalate the complaint. The Council said it would replace the telecall with a standard photocell which did not have the capability of wireless communication. The Council said this was the technology used before the upgrade works.
22. The Council completed the removal of the telecall wireless transmitter six days later. Mr X contacted the Council as he believed the lamppost was still transmitting wireless signals.
23. In January 2020, the Council visited the site to check for electrical faults or wireless transmissions coming from the lamppost. The Council said there were no wireless transmissions and explained this to Mr X in person. Mr X said the Council told him it had only checked for electrical faults.
24. The Council provided a stage two response in January 2020. This was roughly 12 working days from when Mr X contacted the Council to advise he believed the lamppost was still transmitting wireless signals. The Council said the telecell transmitter had been removed and it had confirmed there were no wireless signals transmitting from the lamppost near Mr X’s property. The Council said there was nothing further it could do.
25. Mr X asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage three. Mr X also provided some evidence which showed readings taken from his property showed there were wireless signals present.
26. The Council provided its stage three response at the end of January 2020. The Council repeated it had removed and replaced the telecell transmitter. The Council confirmed the photcell now installed did not have any wireless capabilities and that it was the same technology used before the upgrade.
27. The Council also said the readings Mr X provided could be coming from other transmissions near to his property. The Council advised Mr X to pursue this with the telecommunications company who had a nearby telegraph pole.
28. Mr X asked the Council to provide evidence it had completed the work to remove the telecell transmitter in December 2019. The Council did not provide this to Mr X. In response to our enquiries, the Council provided evidence that it had completed the work to remove the telecell transmitter in December 2019.

Analysis

29. The evidence shows the Council provided information to Mr X prior to the street lighting upgrade works. I note the letter states the streetlights were to be replaced on a like for like basis. In my view, this statement is confusing and ambiguous as it could be interpreted that the lights being replaced would be the same as before. Given new telecells transmitters were going to be installed, this does not suggest the streetlights were replaced on a like for like basis.
30. While it would have been helpful for the Council to have been clearer about what the upgrade works entailed in the letter, I do not consider this amounts to fault. This is because the Council did provide a link to its website which provided more in-depth information about the upgrade works. The information provided on the website was clear in stating that the new lighting would be controlled by a CMA, which used a wireless communication system.
31. Further, the Council also provided contact details and the name of the officer in charge of the upgrade works. It would have been open to residents to contact the Council for further information if they were unable to access the website.
32. I understand Mr X feels the Council misled him in its FOI request. He says the Council led him to believe the CMS used would be different to WiFi and mobile phone technology.
33. I accept Mr X’s view that the Council was not explicit in stating the CMS would use the existing 3G/4G network to operate.
34. However, I am of the view the Council’s response to Mr X’s FOI request was clear in highlighting the new CMS would use wireless technology. The Council said that the CMS was considered a low power wireless device when compared with mobile phones or Wi-Fi hotspots. Therefore, the Council was not saying it was different to the technology used by mobile phones or Wi-Fi hotspots, but that it was low powered in comparison.
35. Further, the Council clearly states, “as with all wireless device…”. This shows the Council highlighted the CMS would use wireless technology. Therefore, I do not find fault with the Council for the information it provided in response to Mr X’s FOI request.
36. The Council has provided the Ombudsman with evidence it has completed the work to remove the telecell transmitter from the lamppost near Mr X’s property. The Council has also checked the site after Mr X said there were still wireless signals transmitting from the lamppost and confirmed the lamppost was not transmitting any wireless signals.
37. I acknowledge that Mr X disputes this and says the Council told him it had only checked for electrical faults. With this conflict in evidence, I am unable to decide what happened.
38. However, I remain satisfied the Council has taken appropriate action to address Mr X complaint. This is because the Council has removed the telecell transmitter, which was the object transmitting the wireless signals, and replaced it with a photocell which does not use any wireless technology.
39. I do not consider the Council has any responsibility to complete further investigative work to determine where the wireless signals Mr X is detecting is coming from.

Complaint handling

40. The evidence shows the Council did not respond to Mr X’s stage one complaint within 10 working days. While it did advise him it was seeking advice, the Council did not tell Mr X of when he might expect a response.
41. It would have been helpful for the Council to have provided Mr X with some timescales for when he could expect the response. However, I do not consider this amounts to fault causing significant injustice. This is because Mr X was able to escalate his complaint to stage two promptly.
42. The evidence shows the Council responded to Mr X’s stage two complaint 12 working days after he first escalated it. I acknowledge this was two days later than the 10 working day timescale set out in the Council’s complaints procedure. However, I do not consider this to be an excessive delay and therefore, do not consider it to be fault.
43. Finally, the evidence shows the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint at stage three in accordance with its policy. Therefore, I do not find fault with the Council’s complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

44. I find no fault with the Council’s actions. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman