Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council failed to properly deal with a landslip which closed the road Mr Y lives on in 2023. He is also unhappy with the Council’s communication during the complaint about the landslip.
2. Mr Y says that this led to the road being covered in mud, rubbish and mess, making the road unpleasant to walk towards.

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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y’s road was closed following a landslip in late 2023. It was cleared and reopened after nearly eight weeks. The Council has explained that it closed the road for public safety and work was needed to assess the landslip and the surrounding land, particularly above the landslip, to ensure that the land above would not fall too. It has said this is why it could not clear the mud and debris off the road sooner. It has now reopened the road following works as it considers it now to not be a safety hazard.
7. As part of the Council’s complaint handling, it did not find fault with its response to the landslip but did agree that the communication with Mr Y had not been sufficient. It apologised for this and explained why at points, although it was in the area, it was not practical for the Council to speak to residents in the area to update them.
8. While Mr Y may feel strongly about the issue, where we find fault leading to injustice, we aim to make recommendations which put the person back into the position they would have been in without the fault.
9. In this case, the Council has dealt with the landslip and is satisfied the road is now safe for use by the public. It has also apologised for its poor communication. As this is a proportionate remedy to the injustice Mr Y experienced and in line with our own guidance on remedies, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and no worthwhile outcome beyond this is achievable through our investigation. Consequently, as referred to in paragraph three, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman