Summary: Ms X complained about a broken manhole cover on the road where she lives. The Ombudsman found there was delay in the Council’s initial response but there was no fault in the subsequent actions it took.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about a broken manhole cover on the busy main road where she lives. This creates loud noise when vehicles drive over the cover. She reported the issue to the Council but was told it was the responsibility of the water authority.
2. The Council later accepted responsibility and carried out repairs on two occasions. Ms X said the repairs were ineffective and the noise continued.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. As part of the investigation I have considered the following:
• The complaint and the documents provided by the complainant.
• Documents provided by the Council and its comments in response to my enquiries.
• The Council’s Maintenance and Inspections Strategy: Carriageways, Footways and Cycleways (July 2019).
• New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.
6. Ms X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. As part of its maintenance strategy, the Council carries out routine inspections of all roads it has responsibility for. Depending on the status of the road, this is done monthly, quarterly, or yearly.
8. The Council inspects the road in question once a month. This includes a general condition inspection, inspection of manhole covers, and a review of each identified defect to check for deterioration.
9. If an inspector finds a defect on a routine inspection they will record it. If it is a utility issue, the inspector will report it to the utility company.
10. The Council risk assesses each defect depending on potential results and how often the road is used. This will decide the Council’s response time. High priority defects need urgent attention. Low priority defects will be addressed in a planned way according to the Council’s resources.
11. Where the Council receives a report about a possible defect from a member of the public it aims to carry out an assessment and respond within 28 days.

What happened

12. Ms X reported an issue with the manhole cover on the road outside her house to the Council on 29 July 2019. She did this from the Council’s website.
13. During an inspection on 21 August 2019, the Council recorded the manhole cover was loose. The records state the surface cover is misaligned, moving and noisy. However, the inspector decided no action was needed.
14. Ms X telephoned the Council on 3 September because no action had been taken. She was told it could take up to a year to fix. On the same day Ms X also reported the issue online again.
15. At about the same time, a car dealership on the same road also reported the issue to the Council.
16. The Council carried out an inspection of the manhole cover on 11 September 2019. It recorded there was a defect which was lower risk and not dangerous. After checking utility plans, the Council believed the cover was the responsibility of Anglian Water (AW). The Council raised the issue with AW for it to address on 16 September 2019.
17. The Council responded to Ms X on 17 September 2019. It said it had inspected the manhole cover and believed it was the responsibility of AW. It said AW had a duty to main its apparatus under section 81 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. It had reported the issue to them.
18. Ms X contacted AW, who sent someone to investigate. AW told Ms X the manhole cover was the Council’s responsibility.
19. On 19 September Ms X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman because she received unhelpful and contradictory communications from the Council. The situation caused Ms X sleep disruption, frustration, and distress. She wanted financial compensation and said better quality manhole covers are needed.
20. The Council inspected the road again on 23 September 2019. It recorded the manhole cover was misaligned, moving and noisy.
21. On 25 September, another member of the public complained about the manhole cover.
22. The Ombudsman returned the complaint to the Council on 10 October 2019. This is because the complaint had not been through the Council’s complaints procedure.
23. The Council wrote to Ms X on 15 October 2019. It said after further investigation and liaison with AW, the manhole cover is the Council’s responsibility. It confirmed it completed repairs on 14 October 2019 and provided Ms X with photographs of the work. It apologised for the initial confusion.
24. Ms X contacted the Ombudsman on 17 October 2019 to say she remained unhappy. She said the repairs had failed and the Council did not address her desired outcomes in its complaint response. The Ombudsman reopened the complaint, and Ms X was advised to tell the Council so it could consider further repairs.
25. Ms X telephoned the Council on the morning of 22 October 2019 to say the repairs had failed. The Council contacted Ms X that afternoon to say it had carried out a more robust repair.
26. Ms X contacted the Ombudsman by email on 30 December 2019. She said the manhole cover had broken again over the Christmas period. The road has heavy traffic and the repairs were not fit for purpose. Ms X thought this email had gone to the Council, but it was only addressed to the Ombudsman.
27. On 6 January 2020, the car garage reported the issue with the manhole cover again. On 20 January 2020, another member of the public reported the same issue.
28. Between 15 October 2019 and 24 January 2020, the Council carried out four inspections of the road, one a month. It found no actionable defects.
29. The Council carried out a further inspection on 4 February 2020. It recorded a loose manhole cover with the surround breaking up. It referred to the previous history, but did not say what action, if any, the Council would take.

Response to my enquiries

30. The Council told me manhole covers have no markings to identify who owns them. Inspectors rely on local knowledge or look at the direction of the drains and make a judgement. If the cover is not in line with the Council’s drainage runs it is likely to belong to a utility company. Most covers belong to utility companies.
31. After the original inspection, the Council reported the defect to the utility company. After further inspection, the Council liaised with the water company and found out the cover was the Council’s on 30 September 2019.
32. The Council investigated the reports received on 6 and 20 January on 4 February 2020. The routine monthly inspections did not identify an actionable defect with the cover. The Council did find an actionable defect during the inspection on 4 February.
33. The Council said it was unfortunate two repairs failed, and it was difficult to say why. Vehicles may have driven over the repairs too soon. Repairs on busy roads are always susceptible to failure. The Council carried out a further repair on 8 June 2020.

Back to top

Analysis

34. There have clearly been issues with the manhole cover. There have been several reports to the Council from Ms X and others. The Council repaired the manhole cover twice and both times the issue recurred.
35. Ms X first reported the issue to the Council on 29 July 2019. The Council’s website says it will respond within 28 days. It did not respond, and Ms X had to chase the Council and send another report online. That was fault.
36. In total, it took the Council about 11 weeks to carry out the first repair of the manhole cover after Ms X reported the issue on 29 July 2019.
37. The records show the Council inspected and noted an issue with the manhole cover on 21 August 2019. After Ms X sent the report on 3 September the Council responded on 17 September.
38. The Council was wrong in saying the manhole cover was AW’s responsibility. It explained manhole covers have no identifying markings and it has a system in place where it reports issues to AW if it thinks they are responsible. I therefore do not consider the Council was at fault here.
39. Once the Council had inspected the manhole cover on 11 September 2019, it took about three weeks to find out it was responsible for the repairs. It carried out repairs on 14 October 2019. I do not consider this time frame to be unreasonable.
40. Ms X reported the failure of the repairs to the Council on 14 October. The Council acted swiftly and carried out further repairs the same day. Unfortunately, the repairs failed again, and Ms X questioned the standard of the works done.
41. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to judge the quality of manhole covers or the standard of repairs carried out. That is for the Council to decide.
42. I appreciate Ms X’s frustration, but it is not in the Council’s interests for repairs to fail. It has a strategy which covers road inspections and defects. Its records show it has kept up monthly inspections over the last two years and it investigated when Ms X reported a defect. The Council explained inspectors did not consider the cover to be at the investigatory threshold when routine inspections were carried out. That is down to the discretion of the inspector and I cannot question their professional judgement.
43. The Council should have responded sooner in the first instance. However, apart from the early delay, the Council acted suitably and in line with its policy. The Council investigated, assessed, and repaired the defect on three occasions.
44. The increased road noise and delays caused Ms X undue frustration and distress. However, the Council’s apology and actions to repair the defect are a suitable remedy.
45. Given the history of repairs failing, the Council agreed to monitor the repairs for the next three months. It will update the Ombudsman and Ms X with any material findings, and at the end of the three-month period.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I have completed my investigation. The Ombudsman found there was delay in the Council’s initial response but there was no fault in the subsequent actions it took.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman