Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council dealt with her concerns about large clumps and spilled tar which was left on the pavement in front of her property and on the road she lives on, after the Council’s contractor carried out works on the road. There were faults by the Council which caused injustice to Miss X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about how the Council dealt with her concerns about large clumps and spilled tar which was left on the pavement in front of her property and on the road she lives on, after the Council’s contractor carried out works on the road in March 2024. In particular Miss X complained about the Council’s:
1. failure to properly deal with her concerns about the spilled tar
2. delays and failure to resolve the matter by removing the spilled tar
3. poor communication with her.
2. As a result, Miss X said outside of her property and the road she lives on had been left looking unsightly after the completion of works by the Council’s contractor. Miss X also said the matter caused her distress, annoyance and the time and trouble chasing the Council for resolution.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A), and 25 (7) as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated matters from March 2024 to March 2025. This covers the 12-month period before Miss X made her complaint to the Ombudsman in March 2025.
7. I have not investigated matters that happened after March 2025. This is because they are considered new and separate matters from the complaint Miss X initially made to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Key events

10. In March 2024, the Council’s commissioned contractor, completed some road works on Miss X’s road.
11. A few days later, Miss X contacted the Council and the contractor. Miss X raised concerns that the road works was not completed properly and that large clumps and spilled tar were left on the pavement outside her property. She asked when the contractor would return to rectify the over spilled tar on the pavement.
12. Miss X continued to chase both the contractor and the Council on several occasions for update on when the remedial works would be done.
13. In July, the Council responded to Miss X’s concerns. The Council accepted that the works completed by its contractor on Miss X’s road fell below the standards the Council expected. The Council advised Miss X that the spilled tar would fade after some weeks, and the visual appearance of the pavement would improve. The Council apologised to Miss X and said it would ask the contractor to return and rectify the issues.
14. In August, the Council’s record showed the contractor had inspected Miss X’s road and observed some minor areas of tar staining on the kerbs. The Council/contractor agreed the tar staining would fade, so no remedial action was planned. The record also stated the Council was unable to comment directly about the outside of Miss X’s property, but that it would reconsider the matter once she provided the Council with her property number.
15. Miss X provided the Council with her property number the same day.
16. Between August and November, Miss X contacted and chased the Council several times for updates and resolution to the issues she had raised.
17. In December, when the remedial works had not been undertaken and when Miss X did not receive any response from either the contractor and/or the Council, she made a formal complaint to the Council. Miss X complained about how the Council had dealt with her concerns about the spilled tar outside her property which she initially raised with it in March, and about its poor communication with her. Miss X said the spilled tar had not faded since the road work was completed in March as advised by the Council. Miss X asked the Council to remove the spilled tar.
18. In January 2025, the contractor inspected Miss X’s road.
19. In its response to Miss X’s complaint, the Council said:

• it told the contractor that the road works completed on Miss X’s road in March 2024 fell below the Council’s expected standards and that the contractor reassured the Council that it had put some provision in place to avoid recurrence
• the contractor had returned to remove the spilled tar from the pavement but was unable to do so due to a parked car over the area Miss X complained about
• the contractor would return to rectify the issue
• if there were any further issues or if Miss X felt the remedial work had not been resolved to her satisfaction after the contractor revisited, she should contact the contractor directly to discuss the matter further. The Council apologised to Miss X for the inconvenience caused.

20. Miss X told the Council she had previously contacted the contractor several times about her concerns but received no response from it. She explained she lived on a residential permit road, so it was likely to have cars parked outside her property. Miss X asked if the contractor could contact her directly and inform her of its next scheduled visit so she could arrange to be available and to ensure parked cars were moved from the affected area.
21. In February, the Council contacted the contractor about the outstanding spilled tar issue. The contractor said it was unable to provide Miss X with cones to put on the road but that it would keep returning to the area outside Miss X’s property to remove the spilled tar from the pavement. The Council asked the contractor to contact Miss X directly to agree on how the spilled tar issue would be resolved.
22. Miss X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and how it dealt with her concerns. Miss X made a complaint to the Ombudsman.
23. In response to our enquiries, the Council:
1. confirmed that despite the contractor returning multiple times, the spilled tar had not been removed from the pavement in front of Miss X’s property as of May 2025 due to parked cars on the road.
2. said on 5 June 2025, the contractor returned to Miss X’s road to clean and remove only the spilled tar outside Miss X’s property and not the whole street. The Council explained this was because it received no other formal complaints from residents on Miss X’s road and it would be a significant undertaking to do so.
3. considered that localised cleaning was likely to be more visually disruptive than the small amount of slurry material which remained on the road.
4. explained the difficulty of applying slurry seal on steep sites and that the Council was working to identify a preventive maintenance strategy to avoid recurrence.
5. said it had recently conducted a trial of new material which was thought to be a better solution for steeper sites which would be monitored.
24. Miss X said the remedial work done by the contractor left the pavement in a worse state and she remained dissatisfied as the pavement in front of her property remained unsightly.

Analysis

25. The Council in its response to Miss X’s concerns already agreed the road works the contractor carried out in March 2024 was below the standard the Council expected. I find this was fault, but from the evidence seen, I find no significant ongoing injustice was caused to Miss X as a result.
26. However, I find fault by the Council for its initial failure to promptly respond to Miss X’s concerns which she raised in March 2024 when the contractor completed the road works. It took the Council approximately four months to respond to Miss X’s concerns (March to July 2024). This delay was fault.
27. After the Council informed Miss X in July that the contractor would return to remove the spilled tar, evidence shows Miss X continued to chase the Council from August to December 2024 for updates on when the remedial works would be completed. This was a further four-month period where the Council failed to deal with Miss X’s concerns, and it poorly communicated with her on the matter. This was fault.
28. The Council took over one year to complete the remedial works to remove the spilled tar on the pavement in front of Miss X’s property. This was a significant delay, and it was fault.
29. While I note the contractor’s multiple attempts to resolve/remove the tar on the pavement in front of Miss X’s property, the contractor adopted an ad hoc approach to complete the remedial works which proved to have been inefficient. I find the contractor’s multiple failed attempts should have alerted the Council to have properly reconsidered and taken a better planned and effective approach to ensure the area complained about on Miss X’s road was clear for the remedial work to have taken place in a timely manner. The Council’s failure to do so was fault which resulted in the delays in resolving Miss X’s concerns/complaint.
30. I therefore find the Council’s delays with dealing with Miss X’s concerns and its poor communication with her between March 2024 and March 2025 (the timeframe of this investigation) were faults. These caused Miss X avoidable distress and the time and trouble chasing the Council and making a formal complaint.
31. As stated in paragraph 7, I have not investigated Miss X’s dissatisfaction with the remedial works the contractors completed in June 2025. This is because it is a new and separate matter from Miss X’s initial complaint to us.

Back to top

Action

32. When a council commissions or arranges for another organisation to provide services, we treat actions taken by or on behalf of that organisation as actions taken on behalf of the council and in the exercise of the council’s functions. Where we find fault with the actions of the service provider, we can make recommendations to the council alone. Here we have found fault with the actions/service of the contractor and make the following recommendations to the Council.
33. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following within one month of the final decision:

• apologise in writing to Miss X and make her a symbolic payment of £100 to acknowledge the injustice caused to her between March 2024 to March 2025 by the Council’s failings as identified above. The apology should be in accordance with our guidance, Making an effective apology
• share a copy of this decision with relevant staff, including those responsible for responding to service users’ enquiries. Remind them about the importance of properly considering and responding in a timely manner to service users’ enquiries, concerns and complaints about highway and maintenance issues
• ensure the Council proactively and properly considers efficient ways to complete remedial work to resolve highway and maintenance issues it receives from service users. And ensure the Council also completes remedial works in a timely manner
• provide the Ombudsman with updates on the Council’s service improvements it mentioned in its response to our enquiries. Updates on the Council’s:
1. preventive maintenance strategy to avoid highway slurry seal spillage recurrence
2. monitoring process outcome of its recently conducted trial of new material which was thought to be a better solution for steeper sites.

34. Within two months of the final decision:

• review the Council’s process and procedure on how it monitors the roadworks undertaken by its commissioned contractors. This is to ensure its contractors complete roadworks which meet the Council’s expected standards.

35. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

36. I find fault by the Council causing injustice to Miss X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman