Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains the Council has failed to fix a pothole on her road which she says is noisy and causing her house to vibrate when vehicles drive over it. Mrs Y is also unhappy with the tone of the response from the Council and that they did not update her on their consideration of the pothole before she made a complaint.
2. Mrs Y says she feels upset about the Council’s response and is regularly disturbed by the noise of buses driving over the pothole.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs Y initially contacted the Council in October 2021. As part of its general acknowledgement email, the Council says it explains it will not necessarily update people on reports as this is often not necessary and would only contact people where further information is needed.
7. The Council carried out site visits to inspect the pothole in November and December. It also inspected a close by speed hump. From these inspections it found the level of the pothole was not significant enough to require action and that the speed hump was in good condition.
8. Mrs Y then complained to the Council about the lack of response and action on her report of the pothole in January 2022. The Council responded, explaining it had inspected the site and found the pothole was not big enough to need action. It said it had not updated Mrs Y as explained in the acknowledgement notice when she had made the report initially. Mrs Y then approached us.
9. As part of our consideration of the complaint, we spoke to Mrs Y about her complaint. She confirmed that since its last response the Council has filled in the pothole in a ‘patch job’. She says that this has not resolved the issue though as a new pothole is now forming which she has reported to the Council. She says the Council has contacted her asking for further information and agreed to investigate the problem.

Analysis

10. The Council has reacted to the report to carry out two site visits and inspected the pothole and considered whether action needed to be taken. It used its professional judgement to decide that action was not needed and has explained this in its complaint response. As it considered the issue properly having action to gather relevant information about the problem, it is unlikely we would find fault.
11. Mrs Y may have preferred to have the Council’s view explained without needing to make a complaint, the Council has referred to its acknowledgment notice, in which it warned Mrs Y it may not contact her further about the issue. It also gave her an explanation in its complaint response of how it had considered the issue, so any lack of understanding has now been rectified. While Mrs Y may have felt the tone used was dismissive, the Council has explained its reasoning on the action it felt appropriate at the time. It does not appear to be overtly dismissive in its tone, albeit that this may be how Mrs Y feels. Consequently, it is unlikely we would find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman