The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Miss X’s complaint about light from a neighbour’s window. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to prevent light from a new window installed in a neighbouring property from causing disturbance. She also says the neighbour erected guttering over her boundary which is leaking onto her shed.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss X says her neighbour installed a window in their property which is at right angles to one of her own and causes light to shine into her room at night. She complained to the Council and it wrote to the owners asking if they would install blind or curtains. It also advised Miss X to close her own curtains at night which could resolve the problem. Miss X says she will not do this because of personal sensitivities.
The owners provided shades which reduced the light to the Council’s satisfaction. It told Miss X that light from a small domestic window such as this would not constitute a statutory nuisance and that she had a means of limiting the problem from her own side. It would be unreasonable for the Council to consider serving an abatement notice in such a domestic situation.
Miss X told the Council her neighbour’s guttering overhangs her boundary and it is leaking onto her shed at times. The Council considered the evidence she submitted but did not believe there was any significant danger to the public which would require Building Act enforcement. It advised Miss X that this is a private matter. She had said that she will be considering taking legal action.
When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions. In this case the Council investigated Miss X’s complaints and sought to resolve the light emissions by informal contact with the neighbour. It could not be expected to resolve a private boundary matter between neighbouring landowners.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to Miss X’s complaint about light from a neighbour’s window. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman