Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to ensure that highway works by a utility company did not cause water pooling which could form ice in cold weather. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which has caused significant injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X says a utility company backfilled a trench which was dug in the public highway at the end of his driveway as parts of works in his street. He says the work was done poorly and he is concerned that the tarmac section may settle further causing water to form ice outside his property. He wants the Council to have the trench properly backfilled.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says a utility company laid a cable in the highway and backfill the trench poorly which he believes has caused the tarmac to settle over time. he is concerned that the surface will allow ice to form in winter causing a hazard.
5. The Council says the works are under a two-year warranty under which the utility company will be liable for re-instating any defects in the highway within that time. it will monitor the site but will not carry out any additional work itself which could void the warranty for the whole works.
6. The Council is the highway authority, and it must decide whether works by utility companies meet the standards for highway repair. In this case the Council is satisfied at present but may require re-instatement works if any defects occur during the warranty period.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which has caused significant injustice to Mr X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman