The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will exercise our discretion not to investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to charge the complainant to remove a light from his property. This is because key issues occurred too long ago and issues of liability for costs need to be determined by the courts.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says that in the absence of a wayleave agreement the Council cannot make him pay the costs of removing a streetlight from his property. Mr X says the Council should pay for the work.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 an investigation if we decide: we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B)) It is our decision whether to start an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code.
My assessment
In the 1960s the Council placed a streetlight on the wall of the property Mr X now owns. Mr X asked the Council to move the light so he can do improvements to his home. The Council agreed but said it would cost £1850.
Mr X complained and said that unless the Council can provide evidence that he is responsible for the cost then the Council must pay. Mr X asked the Council to provide a wayleave agreement showing he is liable.
The Council explained it has no records regarding the installation in the 1960s and the absence of an agreement does not mean the Council is liable. The Council explained that its standard practice is to maintain equipment it installs but removal costs are the responsibility of the owner. After much discussion with Mr X the Council agreed to do the work at cost price and charge £733. Mr X was initially pleased with the offer but he has not accepted it. Mr X continues to assert he should not have to pay for the work as there is no wayleave agreement.
I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons. Due to the time that has passed we could not find out what happened when the light was installed, whether there was any agreement or whether there were any documents stating who would be responsible for the cost of removing the light. We could not establish if there was fault. In addition, when Mr X bought the property he did so knowing the light was on the wall and he could have sought clarification, before buying, as to who would be responsible for any costs associated with the light.
I also will not start an investigation because it is not our role to determine who is responsible for costs. These are matters Mr X would need to resolve either by getting legal advice or through the courts.
Finally, while the Council has not admitted liability for the cost of moving the light, and we cannot determine liability, it has offered to reduce the cost of the work. This is a fair offer in the absence of any evidence as to liability. But, as I have said, if Mr X remains dissatisfied, he would need to resolve the dispute through the courts.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because we could not determine what happened when the light was installed, Mr X could have established liability when purchasing and only the courts can make a decision about liability for the costs.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman