Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the condition of the public highway near his home. This is because there is not enough evidence Mr X has been caused a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

Mr X complained about potholes in several roads near his home. Mr X also complained a developer had removed double yellow lines which had only been partially reinstated. Mr X says the matters complained about have had an impact on his safety and wellbeing. Mr X wants the roads repaired, the lines reinstated, an apology, and for the Council to revise it Highway Maintenance Strategy.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

1. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. In response to Mr X's complaints the Council visited the roads concerned. It decided they were safe and did not meet the threshold for repair. But it did agree to carry out some work as a goodwill gesture. The Council explained to Mr X the developer is responsible for reinstating the double yellow lines. It will contact the developer about this and update Mr X.
6. I understand Mr X is concerned by the issues at the heart of his complaint. But I do not consider them to have caused him a significant personal injustice. We will not therefore start an investigation into his complaint.
7. Also, the Council’s duty to maintain public highways is set out in the Highways Act 1980. But the level of maintenance required is not defined. The Council’s decision about the condition of the roads is a matter of professional judgement. It is also not for us to say the Council should revise its Highway Maintenance Strategy. So, even if we did investigate, it is unlikely we could achieve anything more than the Council has already offered.
8. The Highways Act also sets out a process for members of the public to refer disputes about the condition of the highway to the Magistrates' Court. It is reasonable for Mr X to use this process if he wants to pursue repair to the highway because the law gives the court, not the Ombudsman, power to decide what is a satisfactory standard of highway maintenance. Mr X may first serve notice on the Council under Section 56 of the Act. If the Council refuses to repair the highway, he may apply to the Court for an Order requiring it to carry out repairs.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as any injustice he has suffered is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman