Summary: Ms B complains about the Council’s failure to carry out repairs to two manhole covers in front of her home. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms B, says the Council dismissed her reports of two defective manhole covers which cause noise when driven over and which disturb her sleep.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms B and the Council. I gave Ms B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Twice in July 2019 Ms B reported defective manhole covers outside her property to the Council. She explained that when driven over the covers made a loud noise which disturbed her, particularly at night.
6. In response the Council sent an officer to the site to investigate but having carried out two inspections the officer found no defect and the Council advised Ms B of this.
7. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Ms B complained to the Ombudsman. In response to our initial enquiries the Council undertook another site inspection. The inspector found a non-urgent defect and this has been logged on the Council’s highways maintenance system. However, it has advised that as it is a non-urgent defect on a local road it cannot provide a timescale for the repair.

Assessment

8. When the Council responded to Ms B’s complaint about its failure to repair the manhole covers it explained that defects reported to it are assessed and prioritised according to the level of severity and the general risk to public safety.
9. In this case the Council has now found a defect but as it is non-urgent it does not have a high priority and so it cannot provide a timescale for the repair. This is disappointing for Ms B but it is not evidence of fault by the Council. It is the Council’s role to decide whether a defect exists and what priority to give the repair and in this case it has been deemed to be non-urgent.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman