Summary: Mr X complained about the Council retaining a deposit to adopt a road which was paid to a former council in 1971. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint concerns matters which the complainant was aware of more than 12 months before the normal period for receiving complaints.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council holding a payment which was made to its predecessor in 1971 towards the adoption of his road. He says the Council has held the payment, but the road remains unadopted.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint and he has been given the opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X bought his home in 1999. He lives on a road which is not adopted by the Council’s highway authority. He says the former owner told him that he paid a sum of money to the former town Council in 1971 towards having the road adopted. Mr X says the road remains unadopted and in a poor condition. He feels the current Council has retained the payment without improving the road for residents.
5. The Council has made attempts in past decades to improve the road to adoptable standards. Because it is essentially a private road with public access the frontagers would all have to contribute to the adoption of the road and its future maintenance at public expense. The Council has some payments received either directly from residents in the past or from builders who have contributed through the advanced payments code. However, these payments do not meet the greatest proportion of the costs.
6. The Council has attempted to resolve the problem several times over the past 5 decades but the frontagers who have made no payment have refused to agree to a scheme in which they would have to bear a significant cost. The Council estimates that whilst the sums paid in the past will have increased due to accrued interest, the cost of the works due to increasing construction costs mean that the final estimate is increasing at a higher rate than the value of the bonds.
7. The Ombudsman cannot investigate a matter which has been ongoing for more than 12 months and indeed longer than the Ombudsman service has existed. Only an agreement between the frontagers and the Council could result in the adoption of the road going forward.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not exercise his discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because the complaint concerns matters which the complainant was aware of more than 12 months before the normal period for receiving complaints.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman