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

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complained the Council have resurfaced the majority of her road, but not the road outside her property, which she says is in poor condition. She is also unhappy with how the Council dealt with her complaint.
2. Mrs Y says this causes problems for her visitors as there is often a puddle outside her property which she finds inconvenient.

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 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)
5. 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

6. I considered information Mrs Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council says it inspects the road Mrs Y lives on each quarter. Through its quarterly maintenance inspections it identified that parts of the road needed resurfacing works, but in its professional opinion, the part of the road on which Mrs Y lives did not require this treatment. As it has limited resources, it therefore prioritised the parts of the road which needed to be resurfaced and completed these works. It has said it will continue to monitor the road surface and carry out any works which is required in line with its policy. As part of its policy, it prioritises works on the basis of need.
8. As the Council has inspected the road and decided that the part of the road Mrs Y lives on does not require works as a priority, in accordance with its policy, we would not be able to find fault with the decision-making process to not carry out further resurfacing of the road. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint.
9. As we are not investigating the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mrs Y’s complaint and we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs 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