Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not remove a road bump and that its highways contractor misled him into believing he was dealing with the Council. There is no injustice and the road bump has been removed. It would not be a good use of limited public resources to investigate.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to repair a bump in the road which he says affected his driving by pulling the steering wheel of his car. He says the Council failed to comply with its own repair tolerances. Mr X says a utility company has restored the highway but the problem could have been resolved sooner. Mr X says he has had time, trouble, and costs pursuing the matter due to sending recorded delivery letters and photographs.
2. Mr X complains that the Council’s highways contractor wrote to him under the Council’s logo. He says this misled him into thinking he was dealing with the Council and the lack of transparency will mislead members of the public. Mr X says the Council did not reply properly to his communications or answer all his points. He says the financial probity of the Council’s contract with the company should be investigated.

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’. 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
• 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered Mr X’s information, comments and reply to my draft decision statement. The Council has provided the complaint correspondence. The information includes the record of repairs on the street.

Back to top

What I found

5. In 2016 a utilities company did work at the location due to a burst water main. The restoration work resulted in a raised bump on the road. The Council says that in such circumstances there is a two-year guarantee during which the utility company is responsible for further work.
6. The Council has written to Mr X including a detailed complaint reply dated 21 September 2020. It says Mr X reported the road bump on 21 November 2019, 21 February, 4 June, and 16 June 2020. The Council inspected the road on 19 December 2019 and 21 February 2020. It refers to a history of inspections and work done on the road. It says it has not found the bump to be an actionable defect. It says the road is in poor condition and has been put forward for resurfacing. The Council has explained how its inspectors inspect highways from a slow-moving vehicle.
7. The utility company agreed to remove the bump in the road as a gesture of goodwill. This was agreed during the summer of 2020 with the work completed during the autumn.

Analysis

8. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint for the following reasons:
9. We investigate fault causing injustice. I do not consider the road bump or the Council’s replies to the complaint have caused Mr X injustice.
10. Investigation will not add significantly to the Council’s complaint replies and would not be a good use of limited public resources. The utility company has removed the road bump thereby resolving the matter.
11. The Council is responsible for ensuring its contractor acts properly on its behalf including communications with the public. If there is a failure a person can come to this office. For the reasons given there is no reason to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council did not remove a road bump and that its highways contractor misled him into believing he was dealing with the Council. There is no injustice and the road bump has been removed. It would not be a good use of limited public resources to investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman