Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highways maintenance because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to carry out maintenance work on a kerb and roadside which he says has been experiencing flooding following works under the surface by a third party.
2. Mr Y says this has caused him inconvenience as guests cannot park outside his home without getting their feet wet when it rains and the patch becomes icy in cold weather.

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, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (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)

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. The Council has considered Mr Y’s service request and has investigated the issue. It has found that the issue has been caused by tree roots, albeit that Mr Y disagrees with this conclusion. It has considered the impact of this on the kerbside height and the road and have concluded that this does not meet the level required for intervention. It has therefore not acted to carry out repairs following its own consideration of the issue.
7. The Council uses its professional expertise to determine the level of risk and need for highway maintenance. 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.
8. In this case, the Council says there is not a sufficient risk to warrant further work, basing this decision on its experience and professional expertise. As the Council has considered relevant factors in its decision-making process, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint.
9. Further, our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
10. Here, while Mr Y may feel strongly about the issue, there is not a serious loss, harm or distress caused. As we must use public funds carefully, any injustice Mr Y has suffered is not significant enough to justify our involvement and we will not investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman