Summary: There was fault by the Council in its measurement of light levels. Either it measured light at the wrong property or it made an error in one of the complaint responses by referring to the wrong house number. Either way, this was fault causing avoidable confusion about whether the measurements were from the right property. The Council has already taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice by retaking measurements and undertaking repairs to the lamp’s shield.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about light coming from a streetlamp outside his first-floor bedroom window. He said the Council:
1. Failed to properly assess the light intrusion from the bedroom
2. Failed to properly fix a gap in the lamp’s housing exposing LED bulbs causing light intrusion.
2. Mr X says the light makes it difficult for him to sleep.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the complaint to us, the Council’s responses and documents in this statement.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant guidance

7. Obtrusive light is potentially a statutory nuisance in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Council uses guidance from the Institute of Lighting Professionals (ILP) ‘Reduction of Obtrusive Light’ to assess the impact and to measure levels. This recommends light levels do not exceed 10 LUX.
8. The Council’s procedure for dealing with complaints about obtrusive light is to carry out a LUX test and then for a manager to decide whether action is needed to mitigate obtrusive light if the LUX level is above the ILP’s guidance.

What happened

9. Mr X contacted the Council to complain about excessive light from a streetlamp close to his house. The Council replied saying it would carry out a light test at the external wall of his property.
10. The Council carried out a light test and wrote to Mr X to say it had tested the level at the external wall and it was within the recommended range. So it would not take any remedial action such as installing a shield.
11. Mr X asked if the Council had tested the light at his bedroom window. He wondered whether the light was more intrusive on the first floor. He said a small shield already there appeared to be misplaced as he could see LEDs through the gap from his bedroom, but not from the ground floor.
12. The Council wrote to Mr X with the results of the tests. The highest number was 8.99 at the wall of a different property. The Council said it would fix the gap between the lantern and the existing shield. The Council’s response signposted Mr X to us. He then complained to us. Meantime Mr X also emailed the Council pointing out it had cited the wrong house number and saying he believed the level would be over 10 at his bedroom window because of light leaking from the front of the lamp where there was a gap above the front shield. He said the existing repair to the back shield had no effect on him.
13. After the complaint to us, the Council decided to take a further light measurement at the wall of Mr X’s house. The result was the LUX level was 1.32. The Council said it would not install a back shield free of charge, but he could pay for one as an exception. Mr X responded saying he wasn’t asking for a back shield. He said he wanted the Council to repair the front shield which was faulty with a gap above it. He also said the Council needed to measure the light level at the first floor. He said the Council had got the wrong house number.
14. The Council replied saying it was sorry about the confusion over the subject of his complaint and a team had recently attended and completed remedial works on the front shield. It had conducted further tests at the bedroom window of Mr X’s house and the results were levels below 1 LUX.
15. The Council told me:
• The angle of the lamp directs light down towards the ground to ensure an even spread of light. As a result, the light levels are higher towards ground level and reduce the higher you go up.
• ILP guidance measures light pollution falling on a house surface, it does not take account of what can be seen from a window
• Since Mr X complained to us, it had completed further repairs to the shield on the lamp and completed further light tests using an elevated mobile platform. Mr X told the engineer he was happy with the works
• The tape which was used was not a temporary measure (complaint b), it was strong self-adhesive tape. It was put in place to assist a different property owner (who lives behind the lamp) and not Mr X. The fix was not detrimental to Mr X.

Was there fault?

The Council failed to properly assess the light intrusion from the bedroom

16. There was fault by the Council which either:
• took light measurements from another property’s boundary wall because the initial response refers to measurements from the wall of a property which is not the same number as Mr X’s house.

Or

• made a typographical error in its response.

Either way, this was fault causing confusion about whether or not the Council had correct measurements for Mr X’s property.

17. The Council has since carried out the repair Mr X was asking for and re-tested the light levels, at his bedroom window. This is an appropriate response to remedy any injustice caused. The Council has explained to me why it would not ordinarily need to measure from a first floor: because light will be lower there. There are no grounds for me to question this. In Mr X’s case, the Council has made an exception and measured the light at his bedroom window.

The Council failed to properly fix a gap in the lamp’s housing exposing LED bulbs causing light intrusion.

18. The Council explained the repair was not related to Mr X’s complaint and was to assist one of his neighbours and did not affect Mr X. There is no fault.

Back to top

Final decision

19. There was fault by the Council in its measurement of light levels. Either it measured light at the wrong property or it made an error in one of the complaint responses by referring to the wrong house number. Either way, this was fault causing avoidable confusion about whether the measurements had been taken were from the right property. The Council has already taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice.
20. I completed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman