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

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to maintain various roads in his area, with markings in particular not being reinstated once worn. He is also concerned about other defects, such as on pavements, not being dealt with properly by the Council.
2. Mr Y is concerned that the issues are causing a safety hazard to both drivers and pedestrians.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y has complained about various roads in his area, which he says are not sufficiently maintained, including several places where he believes there should be road markings to indicate junctions.
7. The Council has responded to Mr Y’s complaint, referring him to an online tool to report road defects. It has agreed it will inspect reports and will consider each report in accordance with its policy on how to prioritise issues. It will then act where necessary in order of priority. It has also said there is not a requirement for all junctions to be marked with white lines, and less busy roads are not routinely marked in this way. It has said this as according to its records some of the roads Mr Y says should be marked have no record of the markings previously.
8. While Mr Y may be dissatisfied by this, the Council has shown it is following its policy to prioritise highways maintenance to best use its public resources, considering relevant factors such as public safety and risk. Consequently, it is unlikely we would find fault in the way the Council’s decision-making process and therefore general maintenance of the highway. We will therefore not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr 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