Summary: We will not investigate Ms Q’s complaint about the Council’s failure to complete resurfacing works along her road. Nor will we investigate her complaint about the damage her car suffered because of the unfinished road surface. This is because she may go to court about both matters.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I have called Ms Q, complained that Sheffield City Council failed to complete resurfacing works along her road while it considered what surface to use. She said her car had been damaged on the unfinished surface.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Ms Q provided. I invited Ms Q to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. Section 56 of the Highways Act 1980 says that a person may serve a notice on a highway authority requiring it to confirm 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 repair the highway within a reasonable period. If responsibility for maintaining the highway is not disputed the person can apply to a magistrates’ court.
6. A court also decides claims of negligence and whether a highway authority is liable for paying “damages” for the loss or injury someone suffers.
7. Sheffield City Council is a highway authority.

What happened

8. The Council started resurfacing the road outside Ms Q’s property. It stopped the work part way through as it wanted to consider what type of surface to use. Ms Q was not happy with the surface the Council proposed.
9. Ms Q said there were raised manholes and drainage covers in the unfinished area of the road. She said some of the raised areas touched the bottom of her car, and her tyres and suspension had been damaged.
10. Ms Q wants the Council to complete the resurfacing and give her a council tax reduction.

Assessment

11. We will not investigate this complaint.
12. Ms Q is, in effect, saying the Council has failed to properly maintain the road outside her home. As the Council is resurfacing the road it has accepted it is responsible for maintaining it. So Ms Q may take her complaint to the Magistrates’ Court. It would then be for the Court to decide what, if anything, the Council should do regarding the surface of the road and set a timescale for any works it decides are necessary.
13. Ms Q is also, in effect, saying the Council is negligent by failing to keep the road in good condition. The result of this is that her car was damaged. Ms Q may take the matter to court. It would then be for the Court to decide whether the Council was, in fact, negligent and what, if anything, it should pay for the damage to her car.
14. I think it would be reasonable for Ms Q to go to court if she believes the Council has failed to maintain the road or if she is not happy with the surface it chooses. This is because the court has the power to require the Council to do works to the road. We do not have the power to do so.
15. It would also be reasonable for Ms Q to go to court if she wants payment for the damage to her car. It is not our role to decide whether a council has been negligent. That is a matter for the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms Q’s complaint. This is because she may go to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman