Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway repairs. There is insufficient evidence of significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to repair a pothole and damage to the highway, despite his many reports of the problem. He is also unhappy with the Council’s response to his complaint, which asked him to report the issue again.
2. Mr Y has had to get in contact with the contractors himself to organise the road repairs, causing him irritation and inconvenience.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mr Y and the Council and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y initially reported a pothole on the road outside a flat he rents out in February 2022. He says the Council repaired the pothole the following day. However, two weeks later, roadworks led to the repair of the tarmac being disturbed. Mr Y reported the pothole again in March. Mr Y says he was told the repair would be made within two weeks. The Council came to repair the pothole, but Mr Y says it repaired a different defect in the road. This means the pothole he reported was not repaired.
7. At the end of April, a driver hit bollards along the road outside the flats. The driver damaged several bollards and caused damage to the road surface. Mr Y reported this to the Council, asking it to make repairs.
8. Mr Y complained to the Council, who responded in June. The Council agreed it would organise both repairs for the pothole and for the damage caused to the bollards and the road. However, it said it needed Mr Y to report the exact position of the pothole so it asked Mr Y to report the problem once more. It seems likely this was to avoid any further error in the pothole being repaired. Mr Y feels the response displayed arrogance and a lack of urgency by the Council. He complained to us in June, following the Council’s referral to us.
9. Mr Y then contacted the contractors directly. He says he was told the Council had placed an order with the contractor, asking the contractor to repair the pothole, but not given an order for the repairs for the damaged bollards. Mr Y has since organised the repair of the road, including the pothole and the bollards with the contractors which is shortly due to be completed and is largely repaired.

Analysis

10. Mr Y’s injustice is the inconvenience and his irritation at the situation and the time he spent organising contractors to complete the work. While he may feel otherwise, it was his choice to contact the contractors, and discuss the works with them. This was not a direct consequence of the Council’s service, particularly where the Council had previously responded, correctly or not to Mr Y’s report promptly on two occasions.
11. While it is clear Mr Y feels strongly about his complaint, this injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. Therefore, we will not investigate.
12. As explained in paragraph three, it is also not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. Consequently, while Mr Y may have perceived the Council’s complaint handling as arrogant, we will not investigate his complaint further.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint about highway repairs. There is insufficient evidence of significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman