Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in repairing a collapsed bridge. It is unlikely we could achieve anything for Mr X and if he thinks the Council has failed to comply with its duty to maintain the public highway he may take the matter to court.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council has failed to repair a collapsed bridge resulting in motorists using a different route closer to his home. He is concerned about traffic and pollution and wants the Council to repair the bridge and reopen the road.

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’. 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
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, 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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I assessed Mr X’s complaint, shared my draft decision with him and invited his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. As a result of a collapsed bridge the Council has closed a road to vehicular traffic. Mr X says this results in more cars using alternative routes which pass close to his house. He says the increase in traffic means journey times have increased and he and his family cannot use public buses due to delays. He suggests the Council is not doing enough to deal with the issue as workers are not on-site 24 hours a day, seven days a week as they should be. He wants the Council to terminate its contractors’ contracts and/or serve notice on individuals responsible for the delay.
6. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. The Council has explained that it is currently investigating the cause of the bridge collapse and whether it can be repaired and there is nothing more we could achieve for Mr X at the moment. Until the Council has the results of the investigation it cannot take action to address the issue and reopen the road. The issue is complex and the Council has told Mr X it could not investigate sooner because the bridge was unstable and it was not possible to get full access to it. The issue is clearly causing inconvenience to Mr X and other local residents but we cannot say the Council must end contracts of sack employees because Mr X is unhappy with its progress.
7. The Council has a duty to maintain public highways and to ensure vehicles may pass and re-pass along them safely. But incidents such as this do happen and the law does not specify how quickly the Council must complete repairs. If Mr X believes the Council has failed in its duty he may serve notice on the Council under Section 56 of the Highways Act 1980 and, if it does not act, he may apply to the court for an Order requiring it to carry out repairs. Only the courts may decide whether the Council has fulfilled its statutory obligation and it can set a ‘reasonable’ period for the completion of works to reopen the road.
8. While Mr X is also unhappy about the way the Council has dealt with his complaint, the courts have said that where we cannot investigate a complaint about the main or underlying issue, we cannot normally investigate related issues either. (R (on the application of M) v Commissioner for Local Administration in England [2006] EWHC 2847 (Admin)). So, where the substance of a complaint is not subject to investigation, the Ombudsman does not investigate the Council’s handling of the issue in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X by investigating his complaint now, and if he believes the Council has failed to meet its obligations under the Highways Act 1980 he may take the matter to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman