Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council has delayed in providing lighting to a rear alley and is treating him as an unreasonable complainant. The Council has explained the action it will take to resolve the matter. It is not treating Mr X as an unreasonable complainant.

The complaint

1. Complaint 1: Mr X complains the Council has delayed in providing lighting to a rear access road/alley behind his property. Mr X says the Council has promised action, for some years, but the issue remains unresolved.
2. Complaint 2: Mr X complains the Council, in November 2021, referred to him being on a ‘no response list’ and that it would only log his contacts. Mr X says it is not fair he should be treated as an unreasonable complainant when he has done nothing wrong.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered comments and information supplied by Mr X and the Council. I have considered our decision on Mr X’s last complaint which was about lighting to the front of his property (reference 20 004 032).

Back to top

My assessment

5. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
6. Complaint 1: I am satisfied the Council has outlined action it is taking or will take which will resolve the alley lighting complaint. Investigation will not add to what the Council has said in its reply to the Ombudsman or provide the outcome Mr X wants. The Council says:
1. Between 2010 and 2015 its contractor replaced most lighting deemed not to comply with lighting standards on roads and back alleys (at gated ends).
2. In September 2020 it wrote to Mr X and told him it had asked the contractor to providing lighting in the rear alley at previous lighting points as he had requested.
3. It is in dispute with the contractor about whether this work is included in the contract.
4. It has not had complaints from other residents about the lighting in the rear alley. It will do a resident survey/consultation and if the proposal has support will endeavour to fund the work in this year’s programme. It has asked the contractor to provide an estimate of costs.
7. The matter is progressing and the Council will need to keep Mr X informed of progress and the outcome. I do not consider the delay so far has caused Mr X an injustice. However, it is important given the Council’s promises to Mr X that a final decision is reached without further delay.
8. Complaint 2: There is no injustice to Mr X and it is not a good use of limited public resources to investigate:
1. The Council says it is not treating Mr X as an unreasonable complainant and he is not on a ‘no response list.’
2. The Council says in 2021 it was struggling to cope with Mr X’s communications, partly due to the impact of covid-19. It was in this context that an officer made his comment to Mr X. On 21 December 2021, the Council wrote to Mr X and apologised if the position was not properly explained.

Final decision

The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council has delayed in providing lighting to a rear alley and is treating him as an unreasonable complainant. The Council has explained the action it will take to resolve the matter. The Council is not treating Mr X as an unreasonable complainant.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman