Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council replacing a lamppost and positioning it outside her property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and the injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council replaced a lamppost and positioned it directly on a dropped kerb outside her property. She said as a result, the lamppost is causing an obstruction with parking her vehicle on her driveway. Mrs X wants the Council to relocate the lamppost and to pay for the works required to do so.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X lives in her own home. There is a dropped kerb outside her property. There has always been a lamppost outside her property which sits on the dropped kerb.
6. In 2023, Mrs X changed her front garden to a full driveway to park her vehicles. The Council replaced the lamppost due to the previous lamppost having problems. The Council placed the new lamppost in the same position as the previous lamppost.
7. Mrs X complained to the Council. She said the lamppost was obstructing vehicle access to her driveway. She said the dropped kerb was there before the Council had replaced the lamppost. She wanted the Council to relocate the lamppost.
8. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint and said:
• the position of the lamppost was part of the original approved design at the time the houses on the street were built. This had taken place prior to the extension of the dropped kerb;
• it had no record of anyone submitting an application for the dropped kerb and so the Council had not approved it. If an application had been submitted, the Council would have identified the need to move the lamppost;
• it had installed the original lamppost in an appropriate location based on the lighting and garden design, when it was utilised as a garden. The change of the garden to a driveway had resulted in the lamppost being exposed and in the middle of a driveway;
• the replacement lamppost had been positioned in the same location as the previous lamppost which did not obstruct the property at the time of installation; and
• it could relocate the lamppost however, the cost of doing so would be charged to Mrs X.
9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the lamppost has always been in the same position before any work was carried out to drop the kerb and before Mrs X changed the use of the front garden to a driveway. I recognise Mrs X’s frustration with the matter however, there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
10. Furthermore, the injustice caused to Mrs X is not significant enough to warrant an investigation as she would have been aware of the position of the lamppost when she moved into the property and before she changed the use of the front garden to a driveway. The Council has also explained to Mrs X it can move the lamppost to another location which would involve a charge. It is open to Mrs X to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and the injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman