Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in ensuring completion of highway works. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has not ensured the completion of highway works in line with relevant s278 and s106 legal agreements. He says there is no 3m wide cycle track/footway and the new access road has a gate, blocking access.
2. Mr X explains he is unable to walk or cycle safely and he needs to use a longer route for access.

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, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X could have complained to us in 2008 or soon after, which is when the Council says he moved into the property and would have become aware of the matters complained of. I see no good reason to consider matters that arose more than 12 months before Mr X contacted us. However, as the complaint concerns ongoing issues, I will consider the Council’s actions/decisions within the 12 months before Mr X contacted us.
9. I note the Council is the relevant highways authority however another council acts as the planning authority.
10. The Council explained to Mr X its view that the developer created access in line with the agreements. It said the gates were positioned in an area not covered by the agreement and on a private road which it had no intention to adopt. Therefore it had no legal control or responsibility over the gates. The Council has given reasons for its position in line with the law. I note Mr X disagrees with the Council’s view, however there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision making to justify an investigation.
11. The Council acknowledged it had not yet issued a completion certificate though it considered works, including the roundabout and cycle track, materially complete. It therefore confirmed it would progress this. The Council’s delay in issuing a completion certificate has not caused significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation.
12. Mr X is concerned the current cycle track/footway is not safe. However, I would expect the Council to address any defects or issues as part of its audit ahead of issuing a completion certificate. As above, any delay has not caused significant injustice to Mr X. Therefore I will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman