Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to maintain the highways in his area, particularly in relation to road markings and street signage. He is also unhappy with how the Council dealt with and responded to his complaint.
2. Mr Y says he is a driving instructor in the area and feels road safety is at risk, which is turn puts him at risk too.

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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (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. 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.
7. Mr Y has complained about the lack of maintenance, in particular with reference to road markings and signage. The Council has explained in its complaint response how it intends to maintain the highway, depending on the need. It 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. It also responded to update Mr Y within its complaint response of what it is doing in relation to the specific concerns at sites across the Council’s area which Mr Y used as examples of his concerns.
8. Mr Y strongly feels the service is insufficient. However, 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. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify use of public resources to do so.
9. Further, Mr Y has said he is seeking as an outcome to our investigation hat the Council invest more money into the road network in order to complete work on the highways across its areas following many years of budget cuts. However, this is not an outcome we can achieve. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.
10. As we cannot investigate the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public funds to investigate how the Council dealt with or responded to Mr Y’s complaint. We will not investigate.

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 and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr Y is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman