Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to remove or re-site a street lighting column from outside private property. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s refusal to re-site a streetlamp which she says is causing obstruction outside her home. She says the column reduces the width of the footway and makes wheelchair and pushchair users trespass on the open grassed area in front of her home.

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
• 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), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says a street lighting column outside her home causes obstruction in the footway which is leading to pedestrians crossing over her open grassed area to get past it. She asked the Council to remove or re-site the lamp. The Council assessed the site and concluded that this was the best place for the lamp for it to illuminate the footway and a road junction nearby. It will not remove the column which has been in situ at least since 2009.
6. Councils as highway authorities have statutory powers to place street furniture and infrastructure within the public highway boundary, which includes verges and the footway. The Council has investigated the site of the lamp and concluded that the highway safety aspects for illuminating the junction outweigh other concerns.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to remove or re-site a street lighting column from outside private property. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman