Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal to accept responsibility for maintaining the road on which he lives. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because based on the evidence we have we could not provide a suitable remedy for this complaint. It would be reasonable for Mr X or other residents to seek a ruling from the courts about ownership of the highway.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council refusing to maintain the full width of the road on which he lives. He wants the surface to be repaired to a standard suitable for private cars and light vehicles, but the Council says it will only maintain the footpath.

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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X wants the Council to maintain the whole surface of this road outside his property. The Council says that it is only responsible for maintaining the footway because this is the only route on its highway records. It told Mr X that the carriageway part of the road remains unadopted since it was constructed and is the responsibility of the private residents.
6. Mr X says the road is accessed by a bus service partly funded by the Council so it must be responsible for the highway. The Council does not accept that this suggests the highway is not a private road and the buses do not use the footway which is its only responsibility.
7. The Ombudsman cannot determine what is a public or a private highway. If there is no adoption agreement between the developer and the highway authority, then it has no immediate duty to maintain the highway. Only the courts could give the residents a decision on who is responsible for the maintenance of the road.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because based on the evidence we have we could not provide a suitable remedy for this complaint. It would be reasonable for Mr X or other residents to seek a ruling from the courts about ownership of the highway.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman