Summary: There was fault in how the Council responded to reports Mr X made relating to faulty streetlights in his area. There was also fault in the complaint handling about this matter. These faults caused Mr X an injustice because of avoidable inconvenience. However, the Council have already taken adequate steps to remedy Mr X’s injustice before our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not properly respond to his reports of faulty streetlights in the area near his home. Mr X was also unhappy with how the Council dealt with his complaint saying it told him it had acted when he had information to suggest it had not.
2. Mr X said this caused him additional inconvenience and left his area vulnerable to increased ASB.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

What I have not investigated

7. Mr X complained the Council was in breach of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) because it shared private information with another body. I won’t investigate this matter because the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is a body better suited to address this complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered the information Mr X provided.
9. I considered the Council’s comments and the documents it provided.
10. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Principles of good administrative practice.

11. In 2018, we published guidance for Council’s dealing with complaints. In that guidance we emphasised (among other things) the following:
• Being service user focused by responding flexibly.
• Keeping to commitments including published service standards.
• Ensuring the organisation learns lessons from complaints to improve services.

What happened

12. During 2023, Mr X made numerous reports of various streetlights not working in the local area near his home. Evidently this affected several streets and a main carriageway adjacent to his home. Mr X said he reported these through a portal on the Council’s website called ‘Fix My Street’.
13. Because he did not get a response, in early September 2023, Mr X made a complaint to the Council. He also told the Council there was a high level of anti-social behaviour in this area and he believed this was because the area was in darkness and not properly lit.
14. In its first response to his complaint, the contractor with responsibility for the streetlights, working on behalf of the Council, wrote to Mr X and apologised there had been no response to his reports. It upheld his complaint.
15. The contractor gave Mr X an explanation for this, saying because of a failure in how it recorded the reports, the contractor was not aware there was an issue. Its response said it had checked the lights on one specific road (a main road) Mr X had reported, and it said it found them to be working.
16. In mid-October, Mr X spoke to a complaint’s advisor at the Council about several matters relating to his initial complaint and about how it handled his private information. As part of this conversation, he told the Council he was unhappy that there were streetlights that were still not working. Mr X said he wanted an apology and for the Council to resolve the lighting issues.
17. At this point, Mr X was disputing the Council’s claim that streetlights were working. Mr X said he told the Council this was inaccurate because he had spoken to streetlight workers who told him otherwise and he had checked himself. Because of this Mr X queried the validity of the information the Council were giving him.
18. In early December, the Council replied to Mr X as part of a stage two complaint response. It provided Mr X an explanation for how it responded to his complaint about streetlights. It told him that because of an error in how it recorded reports, this meant it was not always reliable. It explained it believed it had resolved this specific issue.
19. The Council provided a list of roads and specific streetlights it had inspected recently and gave Mr X an update on its findings after that inspection. This indicates some streetlights were still requiring further investigation because they were not working.
20. The Council also acknowledged where it had not properly kept Mr X up to date during its complaint handling. The Council accepted there was fault here and upheld his complaint. It also apologised to Mr X and then concluded its complaint handling process.
21. Mr X and the Council corresponded after this point, up until mid-December, where the Council acknowledged it was waiting for feedback from its contractor about streetlights that were still faulty.
22. In January 2024, Mr X complained to us, and following this, we asked the Council to clarify whether there were any outstanding reports of faulty streetlights. The Council said they had checked on the main road Mr X initially reported and gave Mr X an update about this.

My findings

23. Mr X raised a complaint about lack of action in response to his reports about faulty streetlights in several roads. The Council accepted there was fault in how it recorded these reports meaning it never responded to them.
24. In considering the Council’s response, I am satisfied this appears to be a reasonable and detailed explanation for the actions it took after learning about Mr X’s missing fault reports. It apologised and told Mr X it had resolved the issue affecting how it recorded them.
25. After this, when Mr X alerted the Council to what he saw as inaccurate information about various streetlights, the Council investigated these as part of its complaint handling. The complaint letters show it properly considered and responded to Mr X’s concerns about these and gave him an explanation where it was able. The Council said there was fault with its complaint handling because of delays and apologised to Mr X for this.
26. After the Council completed the complaints procedure and Mr X raised a complaint with us, the evidence shows the Council were still in touch with Mr X. It was doing this to check whether it had resolved the faulty streetlights he remained concerned about and that is appropriate.
27. The Council has accepted fault as highlighted at paragraph 23 and 25 and upheld Mr X’s complaint. It has apologised and offered explanations and the evidence shows on balance, it appropriately followed up on the issues Mr X raised with it.
28. These faults caused Mr X an injustice because of the avoidable inconvenience he had in pursuing the Council. However, I find because of the actions the Council has already taken; this is a sufficient remedy for Mr X’s injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

29. I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr X’s complaint for the faults identified at paragraph 23 and 25. However I am satisfied the action the Council has already taken before our involvement has remedied any remaining injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman