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. Miss Y complains the council failed to properly consider the impact of roadworks on residents, including herself.
2. Miss Y says the roadworks led to the local bus route being cancelled, meaning she then had to pay for taxis rather than use the bus. She also says an ambulance could not get to her property because no cars could drive along her road, causing her upset and worry.

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 Miss Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss Y has a disability which makes it difficult for her to walk. In September 2020 the Council started highway maintenance work along the main road which Miss Y’s road joins onto. This led to the Council closing sections of the road.
6. For some of the road works cars could not access Miss Y’s road because of the ongoing works. Miss Y says this caused her significant inconvenience, as explained in paragraph two.
7. Miss Y complained to the Council in January 2022. The Council responded a few days later, apologising for the inconvenience Miss Y had felt and acknowledging that she had been impacted by the roadworks. However it said that the bus route had been diverted to a suitable nearby road to still allow access to the bus route as far as possible. It also said it had tried to complete the work in phases to try to minimise disruption, but that the work was needed as part of its duty to maintain the highway. It also said it had checked with its on site team and had confirmed access had been available for pedestrians and those using mobility scooters at all times.
8. Miss Y asked the Council to reconsider its position, and it then responded later in January. It said it had contacted local emergency services before the works and provided information about the works and offered to discuss any access arrangements. It also said staff were on-site during working hours if access was needed and there was an emergency number for access outside of working hours. It said it had considered the impact of the works on residents, and tried to put measures in place to reduce this and therefore did not uphold Miss Y’s complaint. Miss Y then approached us at the end of January.

Analysis

9. Council’s are responsible as highway authorities to maintain and repair the highway so that it is free of danger to all users who use that highway. The council was acting therefore to fulfil its duty in carrying out the works Miss Y has complained about.
10. Before the works started, the Council considered and consulted relevant parties, such as the local ambulance service, about the impact on such services from the works. During the work, the council ensured pedestrians and those with disabilities who may use mobility scooters or wheelchairs could have access to the road. It also relocated the bus stop temporary to a suitable route close by. It ensured if help was needed for access to Miss Y’s road this could be quickly arranged, both during and outside of working hours. It also carried out the work in sections to limit the impact to as few residents as possible at any one time.
11. 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. These actions show the Council considered the issue properly and took steps to minimise the disruption as much as it was able. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman