Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision that the complainant must pay to relocate a streetlight as part of her dropped kerb application. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains the Council would not fund the relocation of a streetlight even though it was not in the correct place. She wants the Council to refund £794. She wanted to extend her dropped kerb to improve road safety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence, photographs, the dropped kerb rules, and a design guide. I considered our Assessment Code and comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Ms X bought her home last year. When she moved in there was a dropped kerb and a streetlight on a concrete column to the side of the dropped kerb; the light does not obstruct access although Ms X says it makes using the drive difficult.
5. The Council offered people the chance to install or extend a dropped kerb, at a discount, as part of pavement works. Under the current rules the maximum width of a crossover is four dropped kerbs. Ms X applied to extend her dropped kerb to six kerbs and asked the Council to relocate the streetlight. She said the light is an obstruction especially if she wanted to park two cars. Ms X referred to the design guide which says streetlights should be installed on the property boundary and to the rear of the path – the light outside her home does not meet this guidance.
6. Ms X says parked cars hinder visibility and create safety problems because the road is narrow. She wanted her dropped kerb extended to prevent people parking outside her house. Photos provided by Ms X show that she reverses out of her drive.
7. The Council said the light is safe and operational but it accepted it would need to be upgraded to a metal column. The Council offered to replace the light with a metal column but said Ms X would need to pay for the relocation. The cost of moving the light was £794.
8. Ms X complained. In response the Council referred to the dropped kerb rules which say applicants must pay for the cost of moving streetlights. The Council explained the light was installed in the 1960s when different rules applied and it does not have the money to change lights that do not meet current good practice. It said the design guide is guidance, not law, and is intended to provide guidance for new developments. The Council repeated there are no problems with the light in its current position and the proposal to move it is solely for Ms X’s benefit. It said previous occupiers had not reported that the light caused access problems.
9. The Council said there have not been any accidents in the last five years and the highway code recommends driving out of a drive forwards to improve visibility. It said people can park on the road providing they do not cause an on obstruction and inappropriate parking is a matter for the police. The Council said dropped kerbs are not intended to control on-street parking. The Council also said that the maximum width of a crossover is four kerbs and a property Ms X had referred to with six kerbs had had the crossover installed under old rules.
10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The rules say the applicant must pay to move any streetlights. In addition, the design guide refers to new developments and does not say that existing lights must be moved to meet current standards. The Council’s decision that Ms X must pay to move the light is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. We do not act as an appeal body and we cannot intervene simply because a council makes a decision that someone disagrees with. I appreciate Ms X wanted a longer dropped kerb and free relocation of the light; but it is not wrong for a council not to do what someone wants. In addition, the Council addressed Ms X’s concerns about road safety and why some properties have longer dropped kerbs.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman