Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a delay in repairing a street light and poor complaint handling. This is because the Council has repaired the light and will contact the complainant to apologise.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council delayed responding to his report of a broken street light, did not keep him updated, and failed to respond to his complaint.

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 the Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and spoke to Mr X. I considered emails the Council sent to Mr X about his complaint and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision. I also spoke to a Council officer.

Back to top

What I found

Street lights

4. The Council aims to repair damaged and dangerous street lights within 24 hours, depending on the severity of the fault. It adds non-urgent repairs to its work programme.

What happened

5. In late October Mr X reported a broken street light. The light was over a footbridge which provides a pedestrian route over a stream. The bridge can get slippery due to fallen leaves. The broken light meant the bridge was completely dark. Mr X regularly uses the bridge. He was also concerned that elderly people may slip.
6. The Council registered the report but did not repair the light until early March. In the meantime Mr X chased the Council for updates and asked for call backs which were not fulfilled.
7. Mr X made a complaint on 17 December. By late January, despite chasing, the Council had not replied so Mr X asked to escalate his complaint to the second stage. The Council acknowledged his stage 2 complaint on 3 February. By March Mr X had not received a reply and, on 25 March, the Council told him it had changed its procedure and was no longer doing stage 2 complaints. The Council told Mr X he could complain to the Ombudsman.

Assessment

8. The Council did not handle either issue well. I do not know whether the light was dangerous but Mr X had explained the location and four months is a long time to fix a light, especially when the period of disrepair covered the winter when the light was most needed. However, as the Council has now repaired the light no further action is needed.
9. The Council did not respond well to Mr X’s complaints. It did not reply to the stage 1 complaint and, despite registering a stage 2 complaint, it did not reply to that either. Mr X understandably feels frustrated by the poor customer service and lack of response.
10. The Council has agreed to look into what went wrong and to apologise to Mr X. The Council will contact Mr X within two weeks of the date of this decision. This is a proportionate remedy for the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not start an investigation because the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and look into what went wrong.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman