Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to repair a defective manhole cover. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has assessed the matter, we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking, and it is reasonable to expect him to pursue a court remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to repair a defect in the manhole covers near his home, which he says cause excessive noise and vibration when vehicles (particularly lorries) drive over them.
2. Mr X says the Council should fix the problem in accordance with its obligations.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

4. With reference to the first bullet point above, we can 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. And in relation to the second bullet point, 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

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
7. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. I appreciate Mr X says his amenity is disturbed by noise and vibration when vehicles pass over the manhole covers. But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. I understand two inspectors have visited the area on several occasions. In particular, during a visit in March 2024, an officer confirmed with Mr X where the problem area was located, but concluded the manhole covers were within tolerance and not defective. This was a professional judgement the Council was entitled to reach, even if Mr X disagrees with it. Where defects have been identified at manhole covers in the wider area, these have been reported to the relevant utility company. The Council has also invited Mr X to re-submit his videos of the problem in a format which it can open and then consider.
10. As such, the Ombudsman will not start an investigation because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council has reached its decision that repair works are not required, and the Ombudsman’s continued involvement would not achieve a different outcome.
11. Furthermore, the Ombudsman would normally take the view that the courts are in the best position to decide whether a highways authority has met its statutory duty to maintain a highway. In that regard, a person can apply to the courts for an order to be made under section 56 of the Highways Act 1980, requiring the highway authority to carry out works. I consider it reasonable to expect Mr X to use this alternative remedy because the courts are in the best position to decide whether the Council has met its legal duty to maintain the highway. Also, unlike the Ombudsman, the court can order the Council to do the required work. So, with reference to paragraph 5 above, the Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint for this reason too.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision, we cannot achieve the outcome he is seeking, and it is reasonable to expect him to use the available court remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman