Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s removal of street lighting columns from the highway near Miss X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council removing street lighting columns form the highway in her area. She says she is concerned about the activities of her neighbour whom she says is a convicted criminal. She says she is unable to sleep at night without adequate lighting outside and wants the Council to replace the lights or provide CCTV for her concerns.

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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X says the Council removed lighting columns in her area in December 2025. She says her neighbour is a convicted criminal and she is unable to sleep at nights because of fears of crime due to the reduced lighting outside.
6. The Council says it had to remove some of the columns because they were defective and a safety risk. It does not have a statutory duty to provide street lighting but it does have a general duty of care to the public for the safety of any columns on the highway. It told Miss X that it intends to replace the columns under a scheme in due course. The Council advised Miss X to contact the police if she is in fear of crime. Street lighting is not intended to prevent criminal activity in a specific area and is provided only for highway safety.
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.
8. The Council as highway authority had to ensure that existing lighting was not a hazard to highway users and it intends to replace the lighting in the future. Case law has supported the view that lighting is a statutory power, not a duty.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s removal of street lighting columns from the highway near Miss X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman