Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to prevent a telecommunication pole from being erected close to a private dwelling. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to carry sufficient risk assessments for his home before it allowed a telecoms company to erect a pole in the footway close to his property boundary. He says the pole could give easy access to the roof of his home and has climbing steps attached to it to facilitate easy access.

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. Mr X says the Council did not place any conditions or consideration on an application for erect a pole in the footway with one metre of his property. The Council says the pole did not require planning approval and was permitted development under Regulation 5 of the Electronic Communications Code regulation 2003.
6. This legislation restricts any public consultation and objections from the local planning authority to very limited grounds within 28 days. There were no highway safety concerns which the Council could have raised and any other concerns by Mr X about amenity and private security would not be valid objections for the planning authority to present.
7. If Mr X remains concerned about the security of his property he could consider taking a civil action against the owners of the pole for negligence or similar legal tort.
8. 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

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to prevent a telecommunication pole from being erected close to a private dwelling. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman