Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with light nuisance. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council investigated his reports of light nuisance form his neighbour’s property. He said the Council delayed in responding to his concerns; that it failed to deal with his complaint properly and that he has been treated differently to his neighbour. Mr X wants the Council to apologise, reimburse him for blackout blinds he has bought and provide a breakdown of the steps it took to investigate his concerns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council said Mr X first contacted it about light nuisance in July 2021. The Council’s Housing Service responded. The Council advised Mr X to speak to his neighbour about the nuisance. In December 2021, the Council put Mr X’s light nuisance complaint on hold as he was experiencing ill health.
7. Mr X contacted the Council further in May 2021. Its Environmental Health Service completed a home visit in July 2022. It decided the neighbours light was not causing Mr X a statutory nuisance. However, it did agree to speak to Mr X’s neighbour about the light.
8. Mr X complained about the visit. He said the Officers did not stay late enough to fully assess the light nuisance; he said the lighting had a significant affect on his health and wellbeing.
9. The Council did not uphold his complaint. It offered to complete a further visit to Mr X’s property. It said Mr X refused this. The Council said it completed a visual inspection in December 2022 from the pavement. It said Mr X’s neighbour had removed most of the lights voluntarily. The Council said it is happy to complete a further review from Mr X’s property if the lights are still causing a nuisance.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with light nuisance for the following reasons:
• Although Mr X is unhappy about the Council’s initial advice to speak to his neighbour, that advice was given in accordance with the Council’s published guidance. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to investigate further.
• There is some evidence of delay in how the Council dealt with Mr X’s concerns after he contacted it in May 2021, however, I do not consider that delay caused him a significant enough injustice to justify investigating. That is because when the Council did visit Mr X’s property, it did not find evidence of light nuisance. The Council also put its investigation on hold as Mr X’s request.
• The Council completed a home visit and observed the light. It explained to Mr X that any decision around statutory nuisance was based on the ‘average’ person. It took informal action with his neighbour in line with its guidance. There is not enough evidence of fault in the steps the Council took to assess the light nuisance to justify our investigating. The Council has offered to complete a further visit to Mr X’s property if he states the lights continue to be a nuisance.
• There is nothing to suggest the Council has acted unfairly towards Mr X in how it responded to his light nuisance concerns.
11. Mr X is also unhappy with how the Council investigated his complaint. However, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures where we are not looking at the substantive matter.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman