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

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to repair concrete slabs at the edge of the road, failed to stop HGV drivers using his small road and have failed to place additional signage on the road to warn of its narrow width.
2. Mr Y says he feels fobbed off by the Council and he is worried a lorry will crash into his wall and wants the broken slabs repaired and debris collected to stop the bank from falling.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In the Council’s complaint response, it has explained that it does not own the land on which the concrete slabs are placed. Consequently, it said it cannot replace the slabs and is not responsible for the clearance of the slabs.
7. While Mr Y may dispute the Council’s position about the ownership of the verge, it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council not replacing the slabs, or repairing them, where it denies, or where there is a dispute over who owns the land. Any determination of who owns the land, if Mr Y wishes to challenge this, would be for a court to decide, not the Ombudsman.
8. 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.
9. The Council’s complaint response shows that it has considered Mr Y’s request for more signage at different entry points to his road and stopping HGVs from driving down this part of the highway. As part of its decision-making process, the Council considered the existing signage and available funding both for this Council and the local parish council. It also considered the need for space from the edge of the carriageway on which to place the signage and its ability to prevent HGV drivers using particular roads.
10. The Council concluded it would not put-up additional signs and make road changes at this time and explained its rationale for this in its complaint response. While Mr Y may disagree with this decision, it has been made with reference to relevant criteria which were properly considered before a decision was made. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman