Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the placement of a streetlight close to Mr X’s home. The injustice claimed by Mr X is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. In any case, there is no worthwhile outcome to us investigating the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Councils placement of a streetlight close to his home.
2. Mr X also complained the Council did not consult with him about the streetlight and communicated with him poorly about the matter.
3. Mr X said this caused a negative impact to his mental health. Additionally, he said the placement of the streetlight led to the public accessing his drive and allowing pets to urinate on it which enters his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained the Council replaced a damaged streetlight and placed it closer to his home than before. Mr X said it did this without consulting with him about the matter. He said the placement of the streetlight now invites the public to enter his property to walk around it and animals urinate on it which enters his property.
8. The Council said it tried to discuss the placement of the streetlight with Mr X by visiting Mr X’s home on two occasions, but he was not there when its officer visited. The Council said it spoke with Mr X’s neighbour on both occasions and it believed they had passed on the information to Mr X.
9. The Council said following the streetlight being damaged, it had replaced it and moved it from the front to the rear of the public footway. It said this is best and normal practice.
10. Our role is to consider complaints of maladministration and service failure causing injustice. We look for administrative faults such as unreasonable delay and failing to follow relevant policies and procedures. We will not investigate matters where we decide the personal injustice caused by the fault is not significant.
11. Based on the available information, I am not satisfied Mr X has suffered a significant enough personal injustice to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. While the streetlight has been moved marginally closer to his home, I do not consider this to evidence a significant injustice.
12. Additionally, some of the injustice claimed by Mr X, such as the public accessing, or allowing pets to urinate close to his property is not a direct result of the Councils actions.
13. The Council said it had not faced a scenario where it had been unable to speak with residents about similar proposals before. As a result of Mr X’s complaint, it created a letter to send to residents about such proposals, providing them with the contact details for the relevant people if they wished to discuss them. I consider this action appropriate, and do not consider there are any further service improvements or recommendations we could make by investigating.
14. Finally, as we will not investigate the substantive matters of the complaint, we will not investigate the Council’s handling of the complaint, or its communication with Mr X because it is not proportionate to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the claimed injustice is not significant enough and there is no worthwhile outcome by us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman