Summary: We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to clean the road outside his home and to ensure road safety signage is in place. This is because the injustice he suffered is not significant enough to justify our involvement. In addition, he may go to court if he thinks the Council is failing to maintain the road.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I have called Mr Q, complained that Birmingham City Council failed to clean leaves and litter from the road outside his home. This caused the gullies to block and the road to flood. He also complained the Council failed to ensure road safety signage was in place and maintained. And he was dissatisfied with the Council’s handling of his complaints about these matters. Mr Q said the floods inconvenienced him and lack of road signage was a risk to public safety.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information Mr Q and the Council provided. I invited Mr Q to comment on a draft of this decision. And I discussed the complaint with Mr Q.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. Section 56 of the Highways Act 1980 says that a person may serve a notice on a highway authority requiring it to confirm whether it is responsible for maintaining a highway. If the highway authority disputes this or does not respond within one month, the person may apply to a crown court. The court will then determine if the highway authority is responsible for maintaining the highway and, if so, order the authority to maintain it within a reasonable period. If responsibility for maintaining the highway is not disputed the person can apply to a magistrates’ court.
8. Birmingham City Council is a highway authority.

What happened

9. Mr Q complained to the Council because leaves and litter covered the road and pavements outside his home. He said the leaves and litter blocked the road gullies and the road flooded. The Council cleaned the road.
10. Mr Q also complained to the Council about road safety signage along the road, as road markings were poor and a risk to public safety. He said the Council’s online system made it difficult to categorise complaints and so they went unrecorded.
11. Mr Q complained to us as he did not think the Council had cleaned the road properly. He said it flooded regularly. He said he had been inconvenienced because he cleared the leaves and litter himself, and flooding prevented him from getting in and out of his property by car. Mr Q wants the Council to clean the road regularly and provide bins. He also wants the Council to ensure there is proper signage and road markings in place, and to maintain standards.

Assessment

12. We will not investigate this complaint.
13. I recognise Mr Q was inconvenienced when the road outside his home flooded and that he is concerned for public safety because of what he sees as inadequate road signage. However, the injustice this caused him is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
14. In any event, Mr Q is, in effect, saying the Council has failed to properly maintain the road outside his home. The Council has accepted responsibility for it. Therefore, Mr Q may go to the Magistrates’ Court. It would then be for the Court to decide what action, if any, the Council should take to maintain the road, and set a timescale for the work. It is not our role to say how and when the Council should clean the road or whether it should put additional signs in place. So, it would be reasonable for Mr Q to go to court if he thinks the Council is failing to maintain the road.
15. Mr Q is also unhappy with the Council’s handling of his complaints. As we will not investigate the substantive matters complained of, it would not be a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council handled Mr Q’s complaints about them.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint for the reasons given in the Assessment.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman