Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not dealing with noise caused by vehicles passing over road defects near his property. There is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant us investigating. Investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives on a busy road in the Council’s area. He complains the Council has failed to deal with noise caused by vehicles passing over road defects near his house. Mr X wants the Council to fix the road defects to stop the noise affecting his household.

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 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information from Mr X, relevant online maps and images, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In response to Mr X’s concerns, the Council initially treated his report as a noise and road defect issue. Replying to Mr X’s MP, officers also explained that works to do repairs to the road were scheduled to be done before the end of the accounting year in spring 2025. Officers also contacted the utility firm which owns the inspection cover. The latest online images of Mr X’s area show recent repairs to the road, including a new surround to the inspection cover.
6. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision has been reached after following proper process.
7. The Council assessed the road defect issues and placed them on its schedule of works. It is for officers to decide, using their professional judgement, how to prioritise the repairs across the Council’s area. There is not enough evidence of fault in that process here to warrant us investigating.
8. We understand Mr X may have wanted the repairs done sooner. But we could not have ordered the Council to give the works higher priority on the basis we had received a complaint about them. As the works have been done, including to the inspection cover by either the Council or the utility company, there is no different outcome an investigation by us would now achieve, so we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s prioritisation of works to the road to warrant an investigation; and
• investigation would not achieve any different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman