Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway repair because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained the Council has failed to ensure the proper repair of a public footpath in her area in a timely manner, which she says is causing pedestrians to have to walk in the road. She is also unhappy with the time the Council took to respond to her complaint.
2. Miss Y is concerned about the safety risk of having to walk into the road rather than using the pavement and feels frustrated at the issue remaining after a lengthy period.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We 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)
4. 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, section 34(B))
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 Miss Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. A third party company removed pavement slabs to carry out work under the surface of the pavement in 2023. Following this the third party allegedly has left the pavement in a state of disrepair where it remains cordoned off and the pavement surface has not been replaced. The Council has contacted this third party and has issued numerous Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) to the company for its failure to return the pavement to a satisfactory condition following its works.
8. Some of these FPNs have been paid by the third party. The Council has explained in its complaint response to Miss Y that if the remaining FPNs are not paid, it will carry out further enforcement work by prosecuting the third party. It has said that once these penalties have been paid it will carry out the work to repair the pavement or, if it is completed by the third party, the Council will carry out a site visit to ensure the pavement is returned to a suitable standard.
9. 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. It has also explained its next steps to try to have the pavement repaired. This shows the Council has considered the issue and decided how it may enforce against the third party using its expertise and the options available to it. While she may disagree with the action taken, there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision making to justify investigation. Further, while the prosecution, if it goes ahead, may take time, as this is the legal process for enforcement of FPNs, it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council following this legal process. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss 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