Summary: Mr X complains the Council’s responses to reports of highway disrepair were flawed. The Council could have better communicated its intentions to Mr X. However, there was no fault in the decisions the Council made and we found there was no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly repair the public highway outside his house since he reported an issue in 2016.
2. He complains that the poor road surface causes significant vibration to his home and the Council failed to properly consider this.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have only considered the more recent events that Mr X complained of. The reason for this is set out in the last section of this statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I spoke to Mr X and considered the complaint he made and information he provided. I asked the Council for information and considered its response to the complaint. I sent a draft decision to Mr X and to the Council to enable them both to comment. I considered the comments I received before I took a final view.

Back to top

What I found

Highway Infrastructure Asset Management Plan

8. The Council uses a risk-based approach to consider maintenance of the highway and to determine its repair priorities. It says repeatable condition surveys allow the Council to spot trends and monitor changes in conditions. The Council uses various methods for assessing roads. It acknowledges that reports from the public can complement routine inspections.
9. When defects are reported the Council assesses them and the level of risk they pose. They are categorised to determine the level of response that is required. Category One defects require urgent attention and should be corrected or made safe at the time or within 24 hours. Permanent repairs should be carried out within 28 days.
10. Category Two defects are issues that do not represent an immediate hazard or risk but may have future safety implications. If repairs are to be undertaken they will be categorised according to priority and risk, with response times of 7 days, 28 days 90 days dependant on the risk. Alternatively, they will be considered as part of a planned programme of works.
11. The Council’s policy states it has a Highways Portal to allow fault reporting through the Council's website. It says its Customer Service Centre also provides feedback on enquiries which are all logged. This ensures suitable communication is provided to contributors to acknowledge receipt of information and provide feedback.

What happened

12. In April 2018 Mr X contacted the Council to report that the pedestrian crossing outside his property was in disrepair. He referred to his earlier reports. He stated the main pothole was now 100mm deep and needed urgent attention.
13. The Council’s records show it considered the report. I understand the Council filled the pothole, however, the road was not resurfaced as a whole. The Council’s records noted the “surfacing asset team” were aware and would programme in the repair in accordance with policy.
14. In June Mr X made a further report. He stated the road surface was uneven across the whole pedestrian crossing and safety markings were faded. He stated the uneven surface caused major vibrations through his property and excessive noise was caused by traffic hitting the potholes. He stated responses to previous reports had only acknowledged the report and no update had been given. The Council’s records show it noted the report was with the asset team and markings would be re-instated after any re-surfacing.
15. Mr X raised the issue again in February 2019. He noted a pothole had been filled in early 2018 but when heavy traffic went over the sunken surface it caused severe vibrations. He also noted it was poorly patched and an area allowed water to collect which was regularly splashed onto his property.
16. Notes on the Council’s records show the Council had submitted a ‘programme brief’ in June 2017. In the meantime, pothole repairs had been carried out, but it noted the area was deteriorating.
17. Mr X also contacted his local councillor in February 2019. He asked for the issue to be reviewed. Officers confirmed they had highlighted the area for a re-surfacing scheme, but in the meantime had kept the area safe by doing patch repairs. The Council also reviewed survey results for the area. This indicated there was an issue in the area around the crossing. They confirmed the location was included in the list of “schemes under consideration”.
18. In November 2019 the Council carried out patch repairs at the location. It told us this type of repair is semi-permanent and is often used to make areas safe, or to improve a road’s condition, when full resurfacing is not an option due to funding.
19. The Council stated officers did assess sites visually for obvious signs of vibration problems, but it was difficult to monitor whether a road surface itself was responsible for increased vibrations. It acknowledged that it is possible a flatter running surface would reduce potential vibration issues but this was not certain. The Council stated vehicles on busy main roads will potentially cause vibration even on the best surface.
20. Mr X told us the patch repair had improved matters but only slightly. He remained concerned about the surface and vibrations that traffic caused when using the road.
21. The Council told us resurfacing was not currently scheduled for the location in question. However, it would continue to be inspected monthly and safety defects would be repaired. The general condition of the road would be assessed annually and any further deterioration would be taken into account. The results of the monitoring would be considered and may change the prioritisation of further work. The Council noted there was not enough budget to repair all issues with road conditions, so there was a need to prioritise safety issues and areas with the worst road conditions.

Was there fault by the Council

22. The Council recognises that it does not have sufficient budget to re-surface all roads in its area where there are issues with the surface condition. As a result, it assesses its road network periodically and prioritises what work to carry out. In addition to its routine inspections, the Council also takes account of road condition reports made by members of the public.
23. In response to the issues near to Mr X’s property, the Council visited to assess the road and carried out patch repairs on two occasions: early 2018 and later 2019. These addressed more significant issues with the road surface.
24. The Council explained that it is possible an entirely resurfaced road may improve vibration, but the extent to which this would alleviate the vibration from what is a busy main road, is not clear. I recognise Mr X would like the road outside his property resurfaced rather than patched, and he highlights its condition is fairly poor. There is no specific record that the Council considered the vibration issues Mr X raised when deciding the work it should do. However, it explained it is difficult to assess how much the surface contributes to this.
25. I found there was no fault in the way the Council decided the action to take. The Council has reviewed information from inspections at the site and Mr X’s reports and it addressed the most significant issues, following a risk‑based approach. This is the Council’s stated policy.
26. Mr X noted that although his reports were acknowledged, he did not get any specific feedback on what action would be taken. When he raised the matter with a councillor he was led to understand there was an intention to resurface the road and this work was “programmed in”. While the Council has confirmed the site is on a list that are being monitored and under consideration, the issues at the site do not currently warrant work been planned in. This could have been better explained to Mr X. However, on balance I do not consider this amounts to fault by the Council.
27. I recognise Mr X seeks more action to be taken on the road in question, However, as I have not found fault in the way the Council has considered his reports, I cannot require it to do this.

Back to top

Final decision

28. There was no fault by the Council. As a result, I completed my investigation and closed my file.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

29. We expect complaints to be brought to us within 12 months of the person concerned being aware of the relevant issues. We can only investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. It would have been reasonable to expect a complaint about events from 2016 to be brought to us sooner. So, our investigation is focussed on the more recent issues Mr X complains of and the reports he made from 2018.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman