Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council deciding not to do repair works to the path and verge outside her house. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants.

The complaint

1. Miss X lives with her family in a property with a Council-owned pathway and grass verge to the front. She complains the Council has decided not to do works to repair damage to the path and verge.
2. Miss X wants the Council to either:

• put up a barrier to stop vehicles driving over it; or
• replace the path and verge with a smooth, even hardstanding

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 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
• 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

5. I considered information from Miss X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation has followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, even if someone disagrees with it.
7. In response to Miss X’s reports about the condition of the area outside her home, a Council highways safety officer visited to inspect it. They contacted Miss X to advise they did not consider immediate works were needed. Miss X questioned the decision. Officers replied to explain they determine where the Council uses its highway repairs resources based on the level of risk each issue poses. They made their decision not to do works because they considered the area’s condition and the risks it posed to highways users were not sufficient for it to receive works at this time. Officers have advised they will continue to routinely monitor the area and decide whether it has worsened significantly to warrant further action.
8. It is for officers to gather evidence and apply their professional judgement to decide where the Council uses its resources, including which highway repairs to prioritise. That is the process they followed here. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making processes in prioritising its road works to warrant an investigation. We recognise Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. The outcome Miss X wants from her complaint is for the Council to do works to the road, either by protecting the current surfaces from vehicles with a barrier or by replacing them with hardstanding. We cannot order councils to do works to the public highway. That we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X seeks is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process to warrant us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman