Summary: Mr X complained about the Council publishing incorrect information about liability for maintaining the road next to his home. Mr X said finding the Council did not maintain the road after he bought his home caused distress, anxiety and financial damage. We found the Council at fault for not providing accurate and timely information about the road, which information it knew Mr X and others would rely on when deciding to buy their homes. To put matters right, the Council agreed to refer Mr X’s and other residents’ complaints to its insurers to consider and resolve.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the information published by the Council concerning the road providing access to local homes because:

• it wrongly showed the road as adopted and so maintainable by the Council when it was not; and
• while accepting the information was wrong, it refused to accept responsibility for it as people used third-party searchers rather than asking the Council direct for information about the road.

2. Mr X also complained about the Council’s handling of his complaint as it took 14 months to complete the complaints procedure.
3. Mr X said what happened caused distress, anxiety and financial damage, as people bought their homes believing the road was adopted whereas they were liable for its maintenance. And now the Council had corrected its published information, new buyers knew about the road maintenance liabilities. This affected the sale price of homes bought based on incorrect information. Delays and inconsistencies in the Council’s complaint responses also caused frustration.
4. Mr X wanted the Council to either accept responsibility for maintaining the road or engage in dispute resolution to compensate people for their maintenance liability. Mr X also sought financial redress of £1,500 for the distress and anxiety caused by what happened.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended) Mr X acts for himself and, with their written consent, for 14 other residents, in making this complaint to the Ombudsman.
7. 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

8. I have:

• considered Mr X’s written complaint and supporting papers;
• talked to Mr X about the complaint;
• considered information available on the Council’s website about streets and property searches;
• asked for and considered the Council’s comments and supporting papers about the complaint;
• shared Council information with Mr X; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Mr X and the Council and considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

Publicly maintainable streets

9. Local councils maintain most public streets. But, if they do not, then usually people with property next to the street will be responsible for maintaining it.
10. The law says councils should keep a correct up to date ‘list of streets’ in their area that are “maintainable at the public expense”. Councils now also have a database, known as a local street gazetteer (LSG), of streets in their area. The gazetteer usually includes the street’s location, name and whether it is maintained by the council. Each council’s LSG information forms part of a national street gazetteer (NSG). Councils send updated information from their LSGs to the NSG every month.
11. The NSG identifies each street using a unique street reference number (USRN). Access to the NSG is limited. For example, water and telecom companies may use it to get information when carrying out works to sewers and cables laid under streets. However, anyone may access the ‘FindMyStreet’ website. The FindMyStreet website takes its information from the NSG and shows the USRN and official name of each street and whether it is maintainable at public expense.
12. The Council has a list of streets on its website and a LSG. The Council says it aims to update its list of streets every three months, taking information from its LSG. The Council also says it sends monthly updates on its street information to the NSG.
13. The law also gives councils powers to name and to change the name of a street or any part of a street, and to number houses in a street.

Property searches

14. Most people get professional help when buying a home and will carry out searches to get more information about the property. One common property search is made using form ‘CON29’, which seeks information held by councils. A completed CON29 search will show, for example, whether a named road is or will be maintained by the council.
15. People may either ask the council to complete a CON29 search or use an independent search agency. An ‘official’ CON29 search is one completed by the council and a ‘personal’ or ‘regulated’ search is completed by an agency. Many agencies will be registered with the Council of Property Search Organisations and follow its code of conduct.

The Council’s complaints procedure

16. The Council’s 2017 Complaints, Comments and Compliments Policy has a two stage formal complaints procedure. At stage 1, the relevant service team will investigate and respond to the complaint within 20 working days. People then have 25 working days to ask for a stage 2 review if dissatisfied with the stage 1 response. At stage 2, the complaints team will review the complaint, liaising with the Director or Assistant Director of the relevant service, and respond within 25 working days. The 20 and 25 working day response times may be extended and, if they are, the Council will give the complainant reasons for the delay and the expected response date.

What happened

17. When buying his home, Mr X’s solicitor used an agency to carry out a personal CON29 search. The search included finding out whether the named road (‘the Road’) giving access to his then proposed home was maintained by the Council. Mr X’s completed personal CON29 search showed the Road as maintained by the Council. However, the Council only maintained part of the Road and its maintenance liability ended before the Road reached Mr X’s proposed home. (In this statement, ‘the Original Road’ means the part of the Road maintained by the Council. And ‘the Road Extension’ means the part of the Road not maintained by the Council.)
18. After buying his home, a third party told Mr X the Road was private. Mr X contacted the Council to clarify the status of the Road. Mr X pointed to the Road being shown as publicly maintainable on the FindMyStreet website and the Council’s published list of streets. During the following two weeks, the Council confirmed it did not maintain the Road Extension next to Mr X’s home. The Council also said it did not use the FindMyStreet website or its list of streets when carrying out official CON29 searches. And its official searches would have shown the Road as part publicly and part privately maintainable. The Council said it had now updated its LSG to show the Road was only part publicly maintainable. And this change would later appear on the FindMyStreet website.
19. About a month later, Mr X found the publicly available information still showed the Road as maintained by the Council. Mr X, for himself and other residents, then formally complained to the Council. Mr X said the Council had provided important but wrong information about maintenance of the Road. He and other residents had relied on that information in deciding whether to buy their homes. The Council promptly confirmed receipt of the complaint. Mr X sent several chaser emails before the Council substantively replied, over 15 weeks later, upholding the complaint.
20. In summary, the Council said the Original Road had been publicly maintainable and was so shown on its LSG. However, it had been extended and “it came to light” the same road name was applied to the Road Extension. The Road Extension was private but the LSG had not shown the ‘split’ between public and private maintenance liabilities. The whole Road had therefore appeared as publicly maintainable. The Council apologised for the confusion this had caused Mr X and other residents as their homes adjoined the Road Extension.
21. The Council also said internal consultations had not taken place about naming the Road Extension. The NSG had therefore shown the whole Road as publicly maintainable. The Council accepted there had been “a clear delay” before correct information about maintenance liability for the Road was available and apologised. The Council said it would improve its procedures and update its list of streets more often.
22. Mr X replied to the Council, noting it accepted there was a problem. Mr X said a solution would be for the Council to now accept responsibility for maintaining the whole Road. Mr X asked to meet with Council officers to discuss what needed to happen to move maintenance liability for the Road Extension from residents to the Council.
23. No meeting took place between Mr X and the Council. And the Council formally responded to Mr X, sending a stage 2 complaint response, nearly 10 months later. The Council said it had largely upheld the complaint at stage 1 and updated its information about maintenance liability for the Road. It would not accept responsibility for maintaining the Road Extension and could not assess economic loss under its complaints procedure. It repeated that official CON29 searches would have shown the Road as part publicly and part privately maintainable. Mr X and the residents he represented had used personal searches. Search agencies got information from various sources and that data was more basic than that used for an official search and could be unreliable. The Council recommended the use of official searches and signposted Mr X to the Ombudsman.

The Council’s comments to the Ombudsman

24. The Council said the Road Extension was not newly constructed. It had been a private road, adjoining the Original Road, serving buildings that used the Road’s name in their postal addresses. No third party had asked it to name the private service road (here, the Road Extension) when some neighbouring land was developed for housing. And, giving the Road Extension a name other than that used for the Road, would have inconvenienced existing property owners. So, it kept the name of the Road for the Road Extension.
25. Its LSG and the NSG showed the Original Road as publicly maintainable. When Mr X asked about the status of the Road (see paragraph 18), it saw the LSG showed the Road Extension as publicly maintainable. It immediately updated its LSG to show the Road part publicly and part privately maintainable. It would then have included that change in its next monthly update to the NSG. The NSG was likely updated the following month, leading to the change then appearing on the FindMyStreet website. It updated its list of streets about five months after Mr X had queried the maintenance status of the Road. It had not updated the list sooner as other changes were taking place affecting its streets. So, it had waited until it could update the list to show several recent changes.
26. It used its LSG and an internal mapping system to respond to CON29 searches. Neither the LSG nor mapping system were available to regulated search agencies on copyright grounds as they used Ordnance Survey (OS) Mastermap data. Search agencies had access to the NSG and FindMyStreet website but these did not provide “live data”. The OS had updated their map information to show the private service road (here, the Road Extension) named as the Road. However, the Road Extension was shown differently on the OS map. That different depiction marked the boundary between the Road being publicly and privately maintainable.
27. The Council said it had dealt with forty official CON29 searches for the Road before updating its LSG and a further four after that update but before changing its list of streets. Of the forty official searches carried out before the LSG update, 17 had shown the Road as publicly maintainable. The Council said its official searches correctly showed the Road as part publicly and part privately maintainable once the OS updated their data (see paragraph 26). (The OS data update took place about nine months before the Council updated its LSG.)
28. On personal searches, the Council referred to its website. The website said personal search information ‘might not be in the form of answers to CON29 questions’. So, personal searchers needed to interpret the data they viewed.
29. The Council said officers in its Street Naming and Numbering Team dealt with new homes and new street names. It now thoroughly checked new home and street information to identify the maintenance status of streets. It still aimed to update its list of streets every three months but had added a ‘last updated’ date at the top of the list. This was to alert those looking at the list of the date on which the information set out was correct.
30. On complaint handling, the Council said Mr X’s complaint was unusual and involved various officer teams and so it had not been clear who should respond. However, it recognised its stage 1 response was “very much delayed” and it had not proactively updated Mr X on progress. It had not logged, or therefore tracked, Mr X’s meeting request as a stage 2 complaint. The Council recognised this had not been helpful. And, as Mr X was unhappy with the stage 1 response, it should have processed his further contact as a stage 2 complaint.
31. As Mr X asked for a meeting, it had decided to seek legal advice. Following much officer contact, it found Mr X’s, and the other residents, had not made official but personal CON29 searches. The officer dealing with the case then went on extended leave. No other officer took on the case and officer contacts ended. It took Mr X raising the matter with councillors for the case to be reactivated and the stage 2 complaint response sent. In sending that response, the Council then told Mr X it did not uphold his complaint as he did not have an official CON29 search response. It had not referred the case to its insurers for the same reason.
32. The Council said it had been working to improve its complaints handling. It introduced a new complaint management system in June 2023. And, after officer training, it was now seeing a steady improvement in its response times.

Consideration

Incorrect information

33. The Council has the legal power to name streets. And, here, it was responsible for the Original Road and the Road Extension having the same road name. The new homes along the Road Extension therefore gained a postal address that included the Road. (See paragraphs 13 and 24.)
34. CON29 searches have long been part of the standard practice and procedure for buying a home. And CON29 searches provide information about the maintenance liability for roads. People have for many years had a right to use regulated search agencies to carry out personal CON29 searches. It was foreseeable that people would make CON29 searches for the new homes next to the Road Extension. It was also foreseeable that some of those searches would be ‘personal’. (See paragraphs 14 and 15.)
35. The Council is responsible for keeping a ‘corrected up to date list of streets in its area which are maintainable at the public expense’. It was foreseeable that people would access and rely on Council information about road maintenance liability for CON29 searches before buying a home next to the Road Extension. (See paragraph 10.)
36. The Council sought to distinguish official and personal CON29 searches. It said the information it used to respond to CON29 searches about road maintenance liability was not publicly available on copyright grounds. And personal searchers could not access its ‘live data’ and ran a risk in wrongly interpreting road maintenance information (see paragraphs 18, 23, 26 and 28). However, the law required the Council to keep a correct and up to date ‘list of streets’. Good administrative practice also needed the Council to ensure its publicly available road maintenance information was up to date. And that it either reflected any copyright protected ‘live data' or clearly warned people they might be looking at inaccurate data. The Council knew it did not make all its road maintenance information publicly available. It was therefore essential the Council kept the information it did publish up to date and correct.
37. The Council also told Mr X its official CON29 searches would have correctly shown the Road as part publicly and part privately maintainable (see paragraph 18). However, the evidence showed it provided 17 official CON29 searches that wrongly showed the Road Extension as publicly maintainable (see paragraph 27). The evidence also showed Mr X’s personal search was dated when the Council was returning incorrect official CON29 searches. So, if Mr X had sought an official search, it would probably also have said the Road Extension was maintainable at public expense.
38. Overall, the evidence showed the Council was not proactive in dealing with the Road Extension. The Council was responsible for the Road Extension bearing the same name as the Original Road. It should have acted immediately to ensure the split maintenance liability of that named road was clearly and accurately shown in all its relevant records and the necessary update given to the NSG. It failed to do this and so I found fault here.
39. The Council provided official CON29 searches correctly showing the Road as part publicly and part privately maintainable after a change to the OS Mastermap (see paragraph 26). However, it did not then update its LSG or list of streets. The Council therefore missed this opportunity to update all its relevant records to show the split maintenance liability for the Road. This was fault. And the continuing failure to update the LSG, meant correct information about the Road’s split maintenance liability did not feed through to the NSG and FindMyStreet website. Without access to its copyright protected and ‘live data’, the Council knew personal searchers would likely use the NSG and FindMyStreet for information about maintenance liability for the Road. And it was reasonable for personal searchers to do so knowing the NSG and FindMyStreet took their information from the Council’s LSG.
40. The evidence showed the Council only acted to update and correct all its relevant records in response to Mr X questioning the maintenance status of the Road (see paragraphs 18 and 25). This meant there had been a significant and avoidable delay, after construction of the new homes, before all relevant records showed the correct, split, maintenance liability for the Road. This was fault. The Council was responsible for street naming and keeping an up to date and correct list of publicly maintainable streets for its area. But it failed to do so for the Road for at least 18 months.
41. The Council’s failure to ensure it held correct and accurate information about the maintenance liability for the Road caused injustice. People, including Mr X, received both official and personal searches wrongly saying the Road, including the Road Extension, was publicly maintainable. This was important information for people buying a home. Receiving wrong information about road maintenance liabilities, denied people an opportunity to consider the matter. And, for some, knowing the Road Extension was privately maintainable, might have affected their decision to continue buying their home.

Refusal of responsibility

42. The Council refused to accept responsibility for Mr X’s and other residents’ CON29 searches showing the Road as publicly maintainable because they paid for personal searches. I recognised the Council was not responsible for personal searches. But it controlled street naming and was responsible for publishing accurate and up to date information about publicly maintainable streets in its area. I have found it failed to do this, which led to both official and personal searches wrongly showing the whole Road as publicly maintainable. (See paragraphs 10, 13, 23 and 33 to 40.)
43. The publicly available information, the accuracy of which was the Council’s responsibility, was incorrect for at least 18 months. This was not a case of people ‘misinterpreting’ information but taking published information, which said the Road was publicly maintainable, and reflecting that in CON29 search responses. If interpreting information was the issue, the Council should not have issued 17 incorrect official CON29 searches. The Council was not proactive in ensuring all its road maintenance records were accurate. It knew the Road Extension was not, and would not be, publicly maintained. But it failed to ensure all its relevant records reflected this when the new homes were built. It further compounded matters by failing to update all relevant records when it noticed the change in the OS Mastermap. However, given its responsibilities (see paragraphs 10 and 13), it should not have been reacting but actively keeping accurate and up to date records. I found the Council’s refusal to accept responsibility unsustainable when it failed to proactively update and provide accurate information about maintenance liability for the Road.

Complaints handling

44. When Mr X formally complained to the Council he chased it for a substantive response many times before, three months later, it replied. I recognised the Council said what happened was unusual and involved various teams. However, the Council failed to proactively keep in touch with Mr X. And there was avoidable delay at stage 1 of the Council’s complaints procedure. So, I found fault here. (See paragraphs 16, 19 and 30.)
45. The Council recognised it would have been helpful to have treated Mr X’s meeting request as a stage 2 complaint. I agreed. The failure to do so led to protracted contact between Council officers, which ended due to the long-term absence of the lead officer but without any formal response to Mr X. After contacting his local councillors, Mr X received a response 10 months after asking for a meeting to resolve matters. The Council’s response then told Mr X it would not maintain the Road Extension and sought to distinguish its official CON29 search responses from Mr X’s and other residents’ personal searches. I found the Council’s communication with Mr X, after he asked for a meeting, fell below acceptable administrative standards, which was fault. (See paragraphs 16, 22, 23, 30 and 31.)
46. The Council’s handling of Mr X’s stage 1 complaint and meeting request would likely have been frustrating for Mr X. Mr X was also put to avoidable time and trouble in pursuing his complaint. I therefore found the faults I identified caused injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

47. I found fault causing injustice. To put matters right, the Council agreed, within 20 working days of this statement:

• to send Mr X a written apology and symbolic payment of £200 in recognition of his frustration and avoidable time and trouble caused by its complaints handling;
• to refer Mr X’s case and those of the 14 people he represented to its insurers for consideration and resolution; and
• if further residents of the new homes contact it about maintenance liability for the Road and CON29 searches carried out before 1 January 2023, to also refer those cases to its insurers for resolution.

We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how councils should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making its apology to Mr X. The Council should also provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

48. The Council confirmed it now thoroughly checks street names for new housing developments to ensure early identification of road maintenance liabilities. The Council was also using a new complaint management system with the aim of improving its complaints handling. I therefore made no recommendations for service improvements at this point. (See paragraphs 29 and 32.)

Back to top

Final decision

49. I completed my investigation, finding fault causing injustice, on the Council agreeing the recommendations at paragraph 47.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman