Summary: The complainant says the Council refuses to repair highway defects he reports and refuses to step up his complaints. We will not investigate this complaint as we are unlikely to find fault in the way the Council deals with reported defects. And it is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, says the Council is failing to repair many road defects such as gullies in the wrong place and grime on the highway. He says he has been reporting issues for more than four years and the problems are not resolved. He also says the Council refuses to progress his complaints.
2. He wants the Council to drain the highway using the drainage system which he says it has failed to maintain.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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
• 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

6. I considered the information provided by Mr X. I also considered information provided by the Council including:
• a spreadsheet containing the details of Mr X’s contact with the Council
• records of the telephone calls from officers to Mr X
• details of the Council’s Complaints Policy

Mr X had the opportunity to comment on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council’s published complaints policy sets out what complaints are covered by its Corporate Complaints Policy. It does not deal with requests for service through the complaint procedure:

“Requests for Council services. Most commonly these relate to reports of defects in the Highway and in such cases the Council should be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the issue before recording as a complaint.”

8. The Council’s records show that Mr X’s complaint are mainly reports of problems with the highway such as:
• flooding on various roads
• blocked gullies; and
• roadworks signs left in place after the work is finished
9. The records also show Mr X sometimes makes several different reports on the same day.
10. The Council says that because of the multiple contacts it has restricted Mr X’s contact with the Council. It told Mr X that for three months from the end of November he can telephone the highways customer service team to report new issues. Staff will not discuss existing reports or previously closed reports with him. A named officer will contact him at the end of each month to update him on all highway issues he has reported.
11. The Council has provided written summaries of the lengthily telephone calls made by the officer to Mr X.
12. The records the Council has provided show the Council acting on Mr X’s reports. It has:
• erected warning signs for flooding
• arranged for jetting of gullies; and
• contacted landowners about their responsibility to clear ditches

It has also advised Mr X that it cannot resolve reports of flooding because of overland flow, if capacity were causing water to breech. And it has advised it will not give some of Mr X’s reports high priority.

Assessment

13. Mr X complains the Council refuses to escalate his complaints. However, most of his contact with the Council are reports of defects on the highway, rather than complaints.
14. The Council has confirmed that Mr X will only communicate by telephone or in person. From the information I have seen it appears the Council is following the protocol it put in place to respond to his concerns.
15. Its records show it is raising work requests for jetting etc where it considers this is appropriate. And it has explained to Mr X which reports are unlikely to be actioned as they are low priority.
16. Our role is primarily to look at the way the Council carries out its administrative functions – not to look at its priorities which are a matter for the electorate rather than the Ombudsman. Our focus is on the way the Council makes its decisions and, where there is no fault in its processes, we cannot question the merits of its decisions.
17. The Council must manage the highway in a way that is consistent with national legislation and local policies but, within that framework, is free to set its own priorities.
18. We cannot arbitrate on Mr X’s views on what defects should be repairs and how quickly this should be done. From the information supplied it seems that the Council has given proper thought consideration to his reports and has acted in a way it believes appropriate. I have not seen evidence of procedural irregularity which warrants investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because given Mr X requires telephone or in person communication only, it is unlikely we will find fault in the way the Council is managing its contact with him. Nor do I consider that further investigation of his reports of highway defects will lead to a different outcome.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman