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 ensure a utility company re-laid pavement slabs that are of the same quality as the slabs removed for works to be completed. He is also unhappy with the Council’s response to his complaint.
2. Mr Y says he believes that slabs, which he says have been broken and re-laid unevenly, are a safety hazard, particularly for his elderly wife who uses a frame when walking.

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)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by maladministration and service failure. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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. (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 Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Since Mr Y contacted the Council, it has inspected the pavement he reported was in disrepair. The Council considered whether the pavement is a real source of danger, particularly relating to the change in depth of the pavement between one area and a slabbed part of the pavement. It ensured repairs were made in July 2024. While Mr Y is dissatisfied with the repair, the Council is satisfied the pavement is now in a suitable condition.
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. In this case, the Council has considered Mr Y’s complaint, taken action following an inspection of the area and has taken into account relevant factors such as the depth of the height difference before concluding that the works done were sufficient. As it has properly considered the matter, there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process, to warrant investigation.
10. As we are not investigating the substantive matter, it is not a good use of public funds to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. 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