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

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to maintain roads in his area adequately and it takes too long for potholes to be repaired. He is also unhappy that the Council’s customer hub does not accept cash payments.
2. Mr Y says he has wasted his time and effort in asking the Council to act.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(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 and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council as a local highways authority has a statutory duty to reasonably maintain and repair the highway so it is free of danger to all users using the highway in a way normally to be expected. This means 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.
6. The Council’s complaint response explains that it carries out regular inspections on all its adopted roads and highways but explained that Mr Y could assist with any specific potholes by reporting it on the Council’s website. This shows how the Council has a programme to monitor its highways for maintenance needs but also has a reactive service for when maintenance is needed, prioritised on risk and need. The Council uses its professional expertise to determine the level of risk and need for highway maintenance.
7. While Mr Y may feel this service is insufficient, we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s approach as it is entitled to make a judgement on where to prioritise its resources based on its professional assessment and to rely partially on reports from the public to inform it of any particular needs for repair. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify use of public resources to do so.
8. Mr Y has also complained that the Council has refused to accept payment of council tax in cash and a promissory note to its customer hub. The council’s website lists a variety of different ways for people to pay council tax, other than online. This does not include a promissory note.
9. This is likely because a promissory note is typically used for loans, where the payment of Mr Y’s council tax relates to an already existing debt he owes. As the Council does however have several other ways for Mr Y to pay his council tax, there is not enough evidence of fault in its failure to accept payment. Further, as there are other ways to pay any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
10. However, the Council’s website specifically asks residents not to send cash by post, as Mr Y did initially, but does show that payment can be made by cash at a pay zone store. As the Council will, through a specific scheme allow cash payments to be made, there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigation.

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