Summary: Miss D complains about the way the Council dealt with roadworks outside her house. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the way the Council dealt with the roadworks. There was fault in the way it handled Miss D’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss D complains about the way the Council dealt with roadworks outside her house. In particular she complains:
• the pavement was taken up so she had to cross the road but no additional crossing or temporary footway was installed, and
• the bus stop was re-located temporarily to outside her house without consultation
2. She also complains the Council delayed responding to her complaint.
3. Miss D says crossing the road was difficult due to the speed of the traffic and problems she had with mobility.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’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

6. I spoke to Miss D about her complaint and considered the information she sent and the Council’s response to my enquiries. I sent Miss D and the Council my draft decision and considered the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. Miss D lives on a main road near a new housing development. In November 2017, the housing developer started to build new entrances into the estate from Miss D’s road. The works required public utilities (such as electricity cables) to be moved, which meant digging up the pavements (footways) along Miss D’s road.
8. In June 2018 Miss D called the Council about the works. She complained that a temporary bus stop had been outside her house for two months. Miss D says she had to clean up rubbish left on the grass verge by its users and the sign often fell over into her drive. She says the bus stop was later placed at the entrance of her road, blocking access to it.
9. Miss D also complained the footways works meant she had to frequently cross the road, which was inconvenient and dangerous. Miss D says it was not possible to reach the crossing points on her road as there were barriers and signs in the way and the footways were taken up. There was therefore no option but to cross the main road or walk on it.
10. Miss D also complained that the works were not progressing.
11. The Council replied on 31 July 2018. It said the utilities works were taking some time as they could not all be done together. In addition, unexpectedly, notice had had to be given to nearby premises that electricity would be switched off, and this had delayed the works. The Council said it would ensure temporary bus stops did not interfere with access to properties. Miss D remained dissatisfied and complained on 2 August 2018.
12. The Council also needed to carry out road widening, permanent relocation of bus stops and footways works associated with the housing development. It installed warning signs for its highways works on 3 August 2018, giving notice that the works would start on 9 August 2018. The Council expected its works to be completed by the middle of October 2018. It asked the public utility companies to temporarily backfill the footways trench.
13. The Council sent a further response to Miss D on 21 August 2018. It acknowledged Miss D’s frustration with the time the works had taken. It said it could not monitor all sites at all times and the developer had a statutory duty to manage their own works. The Council noted the developer also had a duty to provide temporary bus stops, which should be located as near to the original stop as possible without restricting access to properties. The Council said it would ensure a crossing point was provided.
14. Miss D approached the Ombudsman as she had not received responses to her emails, but it was too soon for us to consider her complaint as the Council had not yet completed its complaints process.
15. During October 2018, the Council replaced the footway outside Miss D’s property. These works took four days. The Council says access to properties was maintained and the works area made safe for pedestrians on a daily basis. The public utility works continued in phases until 10 October 2018.
16. The Council sent its Stage 2 complaint response to Miss D on 8 November 2018. This outlined the Council’s duties with regards to roadworks and the criteria used to determine the location of temporary bus stops. The response said it had been decided to leave the footways open in between each set of utilities works and it had not been considered necessary to install any extra crossings for pedestrians. The complaint was not upheld. Miss D complained to the Ombudsman. She told us it had been difficult to establish who was responsible for the works or who to complain to.
17. The Council’s highways works continued in various phases until February 2019.

My findings

The roadworks

18. Miss D complains the roadworks went on too long. The utilities works from November 2017 were the responsibility of the public utility companies, working on behalf of the developer, not the Council. I therefore cannot find fault by the Council for any delays there may have been with them.
19. The Council’s highways works ran from August 2018 to February 2019 in various phases. I have seen no evidence that these works were delayed or of any drift or inaction by the Council during the period. I therefore do not find fault.
20. Miss D complains that, because the footways were not reinstated in between each utility works, she was caused inconvenience for longer than necessary. As I have said above, the public utility companies were responsible for those works, including the safety of the site. The decision to keep the trenches open in between works was one the Council was entitled to make and I have seen no evidence of fault in the way it decided this. The Ombudsman cannot criticise decisions made without administrative fault.
21. In response to my enquiries, the Council said its works complied with Construction Design Management regulations and the requirements for safety in terms of signing, lighting and guarding set out in the Safety at Street Works and Roadworks Code of Practice October 2013. It has sent evidence of its inspections and I have seen no evidence the Council failed to manage the site.
22. Miss D says it was dangerous to cross the busy main road, which she had to do frequently because of the footway works. In response to Miss D’s complaint, the Council had agreed to install a crossing point. The Council says this was not done because the existing crossing points were not affected by its works. I understand Miss D says it was not possible to reach the existing crossings because of the footways works, but this was a decision the Council was entitled to make, and without evidence of fault in the way it was made I cannot criticise it.
23. Miss D complained the bus stop was re-located outside her house for a long period and she was not consulted on this. The Council says the location of the temporary bus stop was determined on site to suit “the operational requirements for access for site traffic and with consideration for all road users and residents.” The Council was not required to consult residents about this so I do not find fault.

Complaint handling

24. There was fault in the way the Council dealt with Miss D’s complaint. Miss D first contacted the Council on 12 June 2018. A holding response was issued on 27 June 2018. The Council says it tried to call Miss D, but its written response was not issued until 31 July 2018. The Council’s complaint policy says it aims to send a Stage 1 complaint response in 10 working days or to keep the complainant informed. The Council failed to do this, so this is fault.
25. When Miss D complained again on 2 August 2018, the Council initially decided to treat this at Stage 2 of its complaint procedure, which is an independent investigation. However, it then decided to issue an additional Stage 1 response. This was sent on 21 August 2018, after Miss D chased. Miss D contacted the Ombudsman, and we asked the Council to progress the complaint. It did not initially request an independent investigation because Miss D had not asked for her complaint to be escalated to Stage 2.
26. I find there is fault here. The Council’s Stage 1 responses did not tell Miss D of her right to ask for the complaint to be escalated to Stage 2. This is fault. Whilst she had not explicitly requested escalation, she was clearly unhappy with the responses and had approached the Ombudsman. I consider the Council should have treated her complaint at Stage 2 in August 2018. I also find that the eventual Stage 2 response, whilst helpful in answering Miss D’s queries about the Council’s responsibilities, did not deal directly with her concerns about delay, the footways works or the bus stop. I consider these faults added to Miss D’s frustration about the works.

Back to top

Agreed action

27. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss D for the fault in the way it managed her complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

28. There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with the roadworks. There was fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Miss D’s complaint. The action the Council has agreed to take remedies the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman