Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about street lighting. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council has failed to properly consider his complaint about a streetlight which is shining into his home at night. He also complains about the time the Council took to deal with his complaint.
2. Mr Y says the light is causing him sleep disturbance because of the brightness and the handling of his complaint caused him frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. 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)
5. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y complained to the Council about a streetlight which was shining into his property in April 2021. He said it was brighter than it had been before the Council had changed the bulb and was now disturbing his sleep.
8. The Council responded, explaining that it had changed the bulb for a more efficient LED bulb, which made it appear brighter when viewed directly but was no brighter than the previous bulb. However, Mr Y remained unhappy and asked the Council to carry out an inspection.
9. The Council carried out a site inspection in April and found the streetlight was not close enough to Mr Y’s property to warrant a shield being installed to help deflect the light. Due to the distance from Mr Y’s property the Council did not measure the amount of light the streetlight was emitting during this visit. Mr Y was unhappy with the inspection and asked the Council to return at night so it could see the problem.
10. The Council carried out a further visit and told Mr Y at the end of April that the light being emitted was to be below the level of the previous bulb. Consequently, as it had considered a shield, which was not appropriate in its view, and given that the level of light being emitted was below the level of the previous bulb, it said it could not act further in the matter.
11. Mr y complained about the Council’s response in May. The Council responded to the complaint in June but did not uphold fault.
12. Mr Y’s MP then contacted the Council in early 2022. Mr Y says the MP was informed that the streetlight had been reduced in height to try to help the problem. Mr Y told the Council in February 2022 that from his property the light appeared to be just as high. The Council referred to its earlier response and said it would not install shielding on the light following its earlier consideration of the issue. It referred Mr Y to us.

Analysis

13. 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.
14. The Council has carried out site visits and measured the amount of light being emitted. It has confirmed the amount of light emitted is lower now than before the bulb was changed to LED. It has considered whether a shield would be useful to prevent light from being directed into Mr Y’s property and has found due to the distance of the light from Mr Y’s property that this would not resolve the issue.
15. Consequently, the Council has formed its view on Mr Y’s complaint about the streetlight considering relevant factors. As it has properly considered the issue, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint, even though Mr Y disagrees with the outcome.
16. Mr Y has also complained about the time the Council took to respond to his complaint about the streetlight. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman