Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to respond to her complaints about road repairs needed outside her property. We found no fault in the Council’s actions on those reports, but fault in the way it responded to her complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to respond appropriately to her complaint about the condition of the road outside her property and her neighbour’s. She says the noise and vibration caused by traffic over the road causes regular loss of sleep and impacts her mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I spoke to Miss X and considered the information she provided. I asked the Council for information and I considered its response to the complaint.
5. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and Council Policy

Highways Act 1980

6. Section 41 of the Highways Act places a duty on Highway Authorities to maintain the highway.
7. Highway Authorities are expected to have a system to receive and assess reports of damage or disrepair and to allocate reasonable priority to carry out necessary repairs.

Council Policy

8. The Council sets out its approach to highway repairs in its Code of Practice for Highway Safety Inspections.  The plan details the minimum levels of service for inspections and timescales for reactive repairs that arise from the Council’s duty to maintain the highway. In deciding on its code of practice the Council took account of national guidance in the ‘Well Managed Highways Code’.
9. The Council’s code of practice uses a risk management approach. When officers inspect roads, they use the code to define what issues should be considered defects requiring repair. The code takes account of the depth or extent of potholes and other defects and the category and speed limit of the road. This determines whether or not the Council will act, and if so, what priority will be given to a repair.

What happened

10. In March 2021 Mrs X complained to the Council about the road surface outside her home. She stated the road was uneven from just outside their neighbour’s house and lorries made loud noise when they hit bumps in the road. The noise woke the family regularly and shook items in the house.
11. Mrs X stated she reported a pothole in early 2019. She measured the hole and she considered it met the criteria for the Council to repair it. Mrs X said the Council told her a temporary fix had been done and the potholes would be fixed permanently as soon as possible. She stated the temporary fix in 2019 made a ledge which lorries hit, so the noise continued. She complained there had been no permanent fix. However, when she contacted the Council again she received no response.
12. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint in April 2021. It explained its routine inspection regime. It stated an inspector had done several safety inspections on Mrs X’s road and found no defects that met the criteria for action. The Council stated it carried out a temporary fix on 7 July 2019 and a permanent fix on 30 July 2019. The Council suggested Mrs X may wish to engage a surveyor if she was concerned about the impact of vibration.
13. When Mrs X asked the Council to escalate the complaint and consider it further, the Council declined. It stated there was no further evidence that the outcome would be different.
14. As Mrs X disputed that a permanent repair had been carried out on her road, she complained to us.
15. We asked the Council to clarify the action taken and when the permanent repair was done. In response, the Council provided a chronology of repairs. This listed a repair carried out in December 2018. The Council provided evidence of this. The chronology shows that an officer visited to inspect the site in April 2019 but no defects were found which met the criteria for repair, so no action was taken.
16. This contradicted what the Council told Mrs X in response to her complaint about two repairs being done in summer 2019.
17. The Council sent us copy records showing officers also visited and inspected the road in June 2020 and September 2020 following reports of noise being caused by vehicles going over the bumpy road surface. On each of those occasions, officers found no defects that met the criteria for repair. The Council did note in September 2020 the road was in generally poor condition.
18. The Council explained that since Mrs X’s complaint to us, in summer 2021 it had filled a depression in the road near to Mrs X’s property. This repair was renewed again in November 2021. The Council says that, although the patch repair outside Mrs X’s home did not meet the criteria for intervention, it had also renewed that repair in Summer 2021.
19. Mrs X acknowledged that some road repairs had been done since she raised her complaint. However, she stated there was still some uneven areas which caused noise. She also questioned why it took until 2021 and a complaint to the Ombudsman for the Council to carry out the repairs needed.

Was there fault by the Council

20. When we consider a complaint about a council’s actions we are generally concerned with how it considered the matters raised with it and whether a council has acted in accordance with the law and its own policies. We cannot question decisions reached by officers if these decisions were taken without fault.
21. After the Council carried out a repair in December 2018, it followed up on reports from Mrs X in April 2019, June 2020 and September 2020. On each occasion officers found that there were no defects in the road near her property that met the criteria for repair. There is no data to show how deep any depression or potholes were at that time. Although I understand Mrs X may disagree, I found no fault in the process the Council followed or fault in its decisions.
22. I note that since the complaint was raised further repairs have been carried out which rectified specific potholes and depressions that were there. Although I recognise Mrs X is unhappy that further work was not done sooner, I found no fault in the inspections the Council carried out at the time. So, I have not concluded there was delay in the Council acting on defects that required repair.
23. However, I found there was fault in the way the Council dealt with Mrs X’s complaint. The Council’s response to Mrs X stated temporary and permanent work was done in 2019. This has proved not to be the case and caused some confusion. The Council has not explained how this confusion occurred, but it seems possible the Council’s response referred to other defects it had addressed further along the same road.
24. The Council should write and apologise to Mrs X for not properly examining the issues she raised when dealing with her complaint. However, as the road has since been repaired further, I do not consider any more action is needed to investigate further or remedy the complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. Within four weeks of my final decision the Council should write to Mrs X and apologise for the errors in its complaint response and the confusion caused.

Back to top

Final decision

26. There was fault in the way the Council handled Mrs X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman