Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the relocation of a lighting column because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains about the Council’s decision to relocate a lighting column outside her property. She says the lamppost obstructs her view.

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, or

(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 Ms Y and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms Y complained to the Council about its decision to relocate a lighting column outside her property. She says the Council did not consult with her or consider the impact of its decision on her.
6. The Council explained it has no statutory duty to consult with residents about the relocation of an individual lighting column. It confirmed checks and surveys were routinely completed prior to relocating the column, and determined the new location was most suitable considering the layout of the area.
7. Ms Y says the new column is not in keeping with others in the area. The Council explained that the materials and height of the new column is consistent with all new columns on its network, and all other columns will be replaced over time to mirror this. It said previous column types were no longer being reinstalled.
8. Ms Y told the Council she believed the new column would greatly increase light towards her property. Whilst the Council disagreed with her, it said it would install a rear light shield to the column to prevent this.
9. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement, therefore we will not investigate this complaint further.
10. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
11. Ms Y has also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. However, where the Ombudsman has decided not to investigate the substantive issues complained about, we will not usually use public resources to consider more minor matters such as complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman