Summary: Mr B complains about the poor state of the roads in Council’s area and its failure to hold its contractors to account for them. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely an investigation will add to that already carried out and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, says the roads in the Council’s area are in a terrible state and that the Council is failing to hold its road contractor to account. He says this is leading to unsafe road surfaces for motorists and cyclists who pay to have the roads maintained to a proper standard.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr B and the Council. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B complained to the Council about the poor state of the roads in its area which are maintained by its contractor on the Council’s behalf. Mr B said many had not been repaired when they should have been and that a number of those that had been repaired had been done to a poor standard, with some already disintegrating.
5. While Mr B asked the Council and not the contractors to reply to the issues he had raised, the contractors addressed his complaint and explained it had designated powers to respond on behalf of the Council. The contractors explained their complaints procedure followed that of the Council’s and that the Council retained oversight of it and had reviewed the response it had provided to Mr B.
6. The contractors’ response explained why some roads had yet to be repaired and that those where early deterioration had occurred, resurfacing would take place at no extra cost to the Council.
7. Dissatisfied with the response, Mr B continued to raise complaints. The contractors responded by carrying out site inspections at roads referred to by Mr B and offered to carry out further inspections at any other location he identified as needing attention. Following the inspections, a potentially hazardous defect and some non-hazardous defects were identified and listed for work with the appropriate priority.
8. Mr B has continued to complain about the standard and nature of the work undertaken by the contractors. The contractors most recent communication with him set out how they will be proceeding with works in roads where there are trees which need protection and told him that further checks will be made on repairs already completed. It also told Mr B that, in relation to the state of a particular road he had identified as having problems after road works had been carried out, the road would be swept again and the drains checked and cleared as required. The contractors have told Mr B that they will keep him updated with the progress of the works.

Assessment

9. Mr B’s complaints about the state of particular roads have been responded to by the Council’s contractors. They have made site visits and carried out further works as appropriate. Given this action, and that the service is still in contact with Mr B, aiming to resolve the issues he has raised, I do not consider an investigation by the Ombudsman is warranted or that if undertaken it would lead to a significantly different outcome.
10. Moreover, while Mr B is a road user, along with all other residents in the Council’s area, any personal injustice would appear to be limited and he has already been advised how to make a claim if his car or bike has been damaged as a result of the condition of the road.
11. Mr B says the Council is not holding the contractors to account for sub-standard work. However, in responding to Mr B’s complaints, the contactors explained that while its contract with the Council is based on self-monitoring, the Council carries out sample checks to validate the work done and that the Council robustly challenges poor work and applies financial and technical sanctions to the contractors. Mr B also says that work to particular roads has been outstanding for some time and while this may be the case, it is for the contractors to prioritise the work to be carried out.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely an investigation will add to that already carried out and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman