Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complained the Council has failed to properly maintain her road over several years and failed to provide a proper response including meeting her when she reported issues about her road. She is also unhappy with the way the Council responded to her complaint.
2. Mrs Y says she feels frustrated and as if she has not been listened to and her road has been neglected.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
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 Mrs Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
7. In this case, while Mrs Y may feel frustrated about the maintenance of her road, the budget used and the response the Council had to her reports and complaints, this is not a significant injustice of a serious harm or distress which would warrant our investigation. Consequently, we will not investigate.
8. The Council as a local highways authority has a statutory duty to maintain adopted streets. The Council is expected to routinely monitor the state of highways, depending on their classification and carry out repairs where necessary. But, the level of maintenance, frequency of inspection, and threshold for repair is not set out in law and is open to interpretation.
9. If a person considers that a highways authority has failed to maintain a highway it is responsible for, the person affected can apply to the Magistrates court for an order to be made under section 56 of the Highways Act 1980. This order requires the highways authority to carry out the work needed to the highway. Mrs Y may use this process to try to get the Council to repair the road if she is unhappy about the level of repair currently.
10. The court is 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 it is better placed than us to consider the complaint. We will therefore not investigate.
11. As we are not investigating this substantive issue, it is not a good use of public funds to investigate how the Council dealt with Mrs Y’s complaint. Consequently, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman