Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the time taken to repair a road following a landslip. This is because it is unlikely we could add to any investigation the Council has already carried out and it is unlikely any further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains that the Council has taken too long to repair and reopen a road following a landslip in 2018.
2. He is unhappy the Council has refused to pay compensation despite significant inconvenience and damage to cars before the alternative road was tarmacked.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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)
4. 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 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

5. I read the information Mr Y and the Council provided. Mr Y had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr Y has complained about the time taken to repair a local road (road A) following a landslip in May 2018. For safety reasons, the Council closed road A in June 2018. Mr Y says this meant that he has only had vehicle access to his housing estate over a narrow road (road B), which was only tarmacked seven months after the road closed. Prior to road B being improved, Mr Y says it has been in poor repair, with deep potholes, which has damaged vehicles using it.
7. The closure of road A has continued since June 2018 and the Council has not completed the repairs needed to reopen the road. The Council explained in its response to Mr Y’s complaint in October 2020 that the repairs had been delayed due to legal proceedings about the liability for part of the repairs needed and the need to replace the roadway with an approved design. It also commented that as the road was in an area of active landslip, time needed to be taken to ensure any action would not impact other parts of the hillside or other properties.
8. The Council’s contractor has also explained in an update letter that it has needed to redesign for some of the work to account for a concrete structure found close to the position of the retaining wall. It also said that once it had approval for the road construction designs it would be able to give a total timescale for the remaining work to be completed. It also said it would inspect road B to make sure it remained in a reasonable condition while the work remains ongoing.

Analysis

9. Mr Y has claimed damage has been done to cars using road B before it was tarmacked. Any claims for the repairs to damaged vehicles are a matter for the court or his insurer to decide as a claim would be about who was liable for the costs and can decide whether damage was caused by potholes or not. Further any claims for compensation, for example for loss of earnings, would also need to be made to the courts. Mr Y has provided no good reasons why it would not be reasonable for him to take the matter to court, so there are no good reasons for us to investigate this issue.
10. Mr Y says he wants the Council to repair road A and reopen it as a matter of urgency. If we investigated this complaint, we would not be able to say how long any repairs to the road should take. An estimate of this would be the professional opinion of a highway engineer and not the Ombudsman. As the work is already in progress, it is also unlikely we could make a recommendation following our investigation that would lead to the repairs being made any more promptly than currently hoped following the Council’s own investigation. As it is unlikely we could add to the previous investigation or recommend a different outcome, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we could add to any investigation the Council has already carried out and it is unlikely any further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman