Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council has failed to re-paint a faded white line marking outside his home. This is because the Council has agreed to re-paint the white line. So, an investigation is not warranted.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, paid the Council to paint a white line on the road in front of his property to try to prevent cars blocking his driveway. Mr B says the white line has now faded, but the Council has refused to re-paint it even though his payment included this. Mr B would like the Council to re-paint the white line because his driveway is regularly blocked by parked cars.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

3. We will not investigate a complaint if the Council has already provided a reasonable remedy.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered Mr B’s complaint form and the supporting information he sent. I have considered a photograph taken by the Council when it inspected the white line in July 2020. I have also shared a draft version of this statement with Mr B and have considered his response.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

5. In 2013 Mr B paid the Council to paint a white line marking on the road outside his home. This was to try to resolve a problem of parked cars blocking his driveway. When Mr B paid the Council he also signed a Council document which included the following statement from the Council: ‘The marking will be renewed at no extra cost during the normal maintenance period’.
6. Mr B contacted the Council in July 2020 to report that the white line was now faded.
7. Mr B asked the Council to re-paint the white line. Mr B also put in a complaint to the Council during this period. Mr B says the problem of his driveway being blocked has got worse since the white line became faded. Mr B’s wife is disabled and it causes her stress and anxiety when she cannot attend hospital appointments because the driveway is blocked.
8. In response, the Council said:
• The highway inspector did a site inspection in July 2020 and took a photograph of the white line.
• The district highway manager and a senior highways maintenance officer consider the marking is still clearly visible to motorists and does not need renewing at the moment.
• Mr B’s payment included future renewal costs. But, the Council will only renew the line as needed when other line marking works are identified in the area.
• The visibility of the line and any other markings on the road will be monitored during routine highway inspections.
9. Mr B was not satisfied with the Council’s response, so complained to us. Mr B has provided his own photograph of the white line taken from a different position.
10. Mr B also says in November 2020 the Council did highway re-painting work around half a mile from his home. Mr B says the Council did not re-paint the white line outside his property despite earlier telling him that it would re-paint this line the next time the Council would be in the area.

Assessment

11. The Council accepts it is responsible for re-painting the white line marking, but has decided this does not need to be done yet.
12. In response to Mr B’s concerns, the Council visited the site to assess the condition of the line marking. The Council was satisfied the line marking was clearly visible to motorists and did not need renewing. I have seen the photograph taken by the Council during this inspection.
13. The information does not suggest the Council’s decision was affected by fault. Also, the Council is entitled to decide that any work to re-paint the line would be done at the same time as re-painting work in the area. This is because the document signed by Mr B said the work would be done during the normal maintenance period.
14. Mr B says the Council told him it would re-paint the line when it is next in the area. But, Mr B says, the Council did not re-paint the line when it was doing re-painting work on the highway around half a mile away in late 2020.
15. Mr B’s comment - that the Council said it would re-paint the line - is different to what the Council said in response to his complaint. Also, Mr B has provided a photograph which appears to have been taken more recently. This shows the white line has faded in several areas.
16. In order to consider this matter further, we would need to start an investigation. The Ombudsman must use public money carefully and we focus our investigations on complaints of fault which has caused significant injustice. So, I have considered whether the complaint could be resolved without the need for an investigation.
17. I have asked the Council if it would be willing to commit to re-painting the white line by the end of 2021. This provides Mr B with a commitment from the Council to re-paint the line, but also allows the Council a reasonable amount of time to arrange the works. The Council has agreed to my suggestion.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has agreed to provide a reasonable remedy which means an investigation is not warranted.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman