Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about street lighting because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council failed to properly repair a set of broken streetlights for over 12 months. He is also unhappy with the Council’s response to his complaint.
2. Mr Y says this has led to an increase in antisocial behaviour, including cars being broken into.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y complained to the Council about a series of faulty streetlights on and around his road originally in 2023. The Council inspected the site and found that a service cable, belonging to a third-party company, was not working. The Council informed the third party of the fault.
8. The Council, after further reports from Mr Y, told the third-party company of the fault a further three times. The fault on the service cable was repaired between July and August. The Council at this time checked the streetlights and found that the system was now working. Mr Y then complained in September 2024.

Analysis

9. The Council’s complaint response shows that it initially tried to replace the streetlight bulb to rectify the problem in October 2023. It then sent contractors working on its behalf to the site when the problem recurred and upon finding the cable to not have a suitable electricity supply, reported this to the relevant third party. As the cable did not belong to the Council, but to the third party, and it would have been acting against statutory regulations had it have tried to replace or repair the cable. When the repair was not made, it continued to report this to the relevant third-party until the repair was completed and it then agreed to carry out a further site visit to ensure the light was not working without issue.
10. As the Council considered the issue Mr Y had raised, acted to investigate it and then reported it to the relevant third-party on more than one occasion, it used its professional judgement to consider the problem and act appropriately. While Mr Y may disagree with the Council’s decision on how to act, as the Council appropriately to repair the lights and had contacted the third-party it needed to carry out the repairs, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. As it could not carry out the necessary repair itself, we would not hold the Council responsible for the time taken for a third party to carry out the repair needed. Consequently, we will not investigate.
11. Mr Y has further complained about the Council’s response to his complaint. However, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. As we are not investigating the substantive matter, we will not investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman