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

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to properly maintain the highway outside his home, causing the surface area of the road to break up. This in turn, Mr Y says, is causing his home to vibrate and shake and he is concerned about the safety of the road.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. There is a works chamber, owned by the local water company, situated in the road outside Mr Y’s property. Mr Y says that due to the amount and speed of traffic, in particular HGVs, travelling down the road has caused damage to the road surface and structure surrounding the works chamber. He also says this is causing his home to vibrate and shake.
6. Mr Y complained to the Council, who in response have contacted the local water company and assessed the condition of the highway. It has then explained to Mr Y that it has raised its concerns with the water company and will continue to monitor the highway, but due to a low risk as a result of the issue, it will not be acting to carry out repairs immediately but would reconsider this if the road deteriorates significantly and becomes a safety risk. The Council has also referred Mr Y to its policy, explaining how it prioritises works.
7. As the Council has considered the issue, acted to contact the water company, but assessed the matter using its professional judgement and expertise based on the level of risk in accordance with its policy, its decision has been made properly. While Mr Y may feel strongly about the matter, where the decision has been made properly, even if Mr Y disagrees with it, we cannot find fault in the outcome. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. We will therefore not investigate.
8. Further, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Council do not owe a duty to investigate noise or vibration from traffic. Its duty, as a highways authority, is to reasonably maintain the highways so it is free of danger to all uses who use the highway in the way normally expected of them. Consequently, the Council is not required to stop Mr Y’s property from vibrating due to traffic. It is only required to maintain the highway, which in this case it has assessed for maintenance prioritised in line with its policy. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating so we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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