Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway repairs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s method of repairing the roads in his area. He says the repairs are carried out piecemeal which results in a patchwork appearance and increases the amount of time when they are closed or restricted for repairs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained to his local councillor about the repeated repairs to the road near his home and the overall patchwork effect of repeated repairs on roads in his area. He says the councillor failed to persuade the highway authority to take any action and the roads remain poor in appearance.
6. The Council told Mr X that it has a reactive repairs system to defects which it records during three-monthly inspections for roads similar to his in status. If any defects are noted which meet the intervention level they are scheduled for repairs. This can result in multiple works occurring in roads where there are defects occurring regularly. Some additional works were required on the road where Mr X lives because the Council was not satisfied with some of its contractor’s work and these had to be rescheduled to its satisfaction.
7. We may not question the merits of decisions which have been properly made. We do not comment on judgements councils make, unless they are affected by fault in the decision-making process. In this case the Council has explained how it carries out highway repairs and there is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice arising from the process.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate this complaint about highway repairs. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman