Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has repeatedly granted temporary traffic licenses to utility companies on the road outside his home. Mr Y says this allows companies to keep carrying out work beneath the road, resurface where the hole was, only for the area to be dug again for other work at a later date.
2. Mr Y feels this leaves a safety hazard, risking accidents, causes him frustration and distress and is a waste of taxpayer’s money.

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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y has told us that he is seeking, as an outcome to our process, for the Council to organise a meeting between it and all of the utility companies in his area to agree an improvement plan to fix the issues permanently in his area.
6. This is not an outcome that the Ombudsman can achieve through an investigation. It would require the cooperation of several other parties outside of our process and jurisdiction. It also would not guarantee any progress on the issue from Mr Y’s point of view and would not provide him with a remedy to any injustice caused to put him into the position he would be in if we found fault.
7. Mr Y has also said that his personal injustice is the frustration and distress he has felt. While Mr Y may feel strongly, we would not consider his injustice to be a serious harm, loss or distress. We must use public money carefully and where we do not consider any injustice significant enough to justify our involvement, as is the case here, we will not investigate.
8. Further, it is unlikely we would find fault in this case, as the Council has a duty, as the Highway Authority for the area, to issue a licence for temporary road closures, restrictions or traffic lights to enable access and safety for the public when utility companies require access to underground services for maintenance works. These are not always works which can be predicted, either by the utility companies or the Council.
9. The Council in such situations can only respond to the requests and to limit such requests would potentially cause problems for users of those utilities, potentially including Mr Y. They could also cause a hazard for road users and the public, depending on the issue that a company is seeking to fix or maintain. While these requests may be more numerous than Mr Y would want, this is not enough evidence in itself of fault to justify using public funds to investigate.
10. For the reasons I have explained above, and referred to in paragraph three, 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, any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman