Summary: Mr C complains the Council took too long to repair properly a pothole outside his house which meant he spent unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing the matter and his family suffered noise and disturbance for longer than necessary which affected their sleep. The Ombudsman finds the delay was fault by the Council but considers the agreed actions of an apology, payment of £300 and tighter controls for highway repairs are enough to provide a suitable remedy for Mr C’s injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr C, complains the Council took too long to repair properly a pothole outside his house. Mr C says because of the Council’s fault he has spent unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing the matter and his family suffered noise and disturbance from the poor road surface for longer than necessary which seriously affected their ability to sleep.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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

4. I read the papers provided by Mr C and discussed the complaint with him. I have considered some information from the Council and provided a copy of this to Mr C. I have explained my draft decision to Mr C and the Council and provided an opportunity for comment.

Back to top

What I found

5. The Council’s policy says it will categorise defects in the highway observed during safety inspections to decide how quickly action is required.
6. The Council categorises ‘emergency’ defects which represent a critical hazard as requiring immediate action, category 1 defects which require prompt action and category 2 defects which do not represent an immediate hazard which can be repaired within longer timescales. Category 2 defects are then divided into high priority which require making safe or repairing within 5 working days, medium priority which require a repair within 28 days and low priority which can be considered for planned maintenance.
7. Mr C reported a small pothole around a drain near his property in January 2018. He says an initial infill repair in January failed within days and another repair in February also failed after a couple of weeks.
8. Mr C made several telephone calls to the Council over the following months before making a formal complaint about the matter in May. Mr C says he was told in June that a permanent repair would be completed within 60 days. Mr C says he received an apology in August for the continuing delay.
9. Mr C says workmen arrived in October but could not complete the work as there was not a traffic plan in place and the work was completed on a wet day in November. Mr C was sceptical about the quality of the repair. This permanent repair failed in January 2019. Mr C says this was quickly repaired.
10. The Council has explained the original pothole Mr C reported in January 2018 was made safe using a temporary repair which is standard practice in the winter months until a permanent repair can be carried out in warmer weather.  The permanent repair was delayed due to a large backlog of work from the winter period. Meanwhile, the temporary repair failed and received another temporary repair. This was followed up by a programmed permanent repair. However, the permanent repair was of a poor standard and failed. The Council immediately raised the issue with its highways contractor on receiving Mr C’s further report who remedied the matter.  The Council’s Area Engineer has visited the site to inspect the repair and called to see Mr C who was unavailable at the time to apologise for the delay with the repair and the inconvenience it had created.
11. The Council responded promptly to Mr C’s initial report in January 2018 and to his report that the temporary repair had failed. However, there followed a period of delay from February to November 2018 before a permanent repair was made. I consider this delay constitutes fault by the Council. The subsequent repair was also not completed to an acceptable standard by the Council’s contractor.
12. During my investigation the Council confirmed it had introduced tighter controls as a result of Mr C’s complaint to prevent the situation from reoccurring. The Council says any repeat temporary repair will normally be permanently fixed to avoid a second temporary repair and any repairs on ‘A’ roads will be permanently repaired the first-time subject to weather conditions. The Council also offered to write to Mr C with a formal apology and pay him £100 to reflect his time and trouble.
13. The Ombudsman welcomes the Council’s actions and considers the £100 is a reasonable sum for the time and trouble element of Mr C’s complaint. However, I do not consider it adequately reflects the impact on Mr C and his family during the period of delay. I have recommended an increased sum to reflect this.

Agreed action

14. The Council will take the following actions:
1. provide Mr C with a written apology and pay him £300 within one month of my final decision to recognise his time and trouble and the impact on him and his family of the delay in providing a permanent repair; and
2. confirm the tighter controls around future highway repairs have been put in place within three months of my final decision.

Back to top

Final decision

15. I have completed my investigation as I consider the agreed actions above are enough to remedy the injustice caused to Mr C.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman