Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because the courts and insurers are better placed to consider the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to maintain and repair the road surface outside his home, saying that the surface is acceptable when Mr Y says it is not.
2. Mr Y says the surface condition leads to tarmac and stones being carried to his driveway and subsequently into his home. He says the surface also leads to water pooling on the road, which he says is getting worse.

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 another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y has complained to the Council several times about the repair and maintenance of the surface of the road outside his home, which he believes to need work.
8. The Council has visited the road to inspect the surface in both April and May 2025. The Council initially found the highway to be in sufficiently good condition that remedial works were not needed. Following the Council’s visit in May 2025, it found some minor deterioration of the highway surface, which met the Council’s intervention levels. Consequently, it said it would repair these parts of the road, albeit not the full section Mr Y had requested as some points did not fall below the required standard. Mr Y then approached us.
9. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
10. In this case, the Council has inspected the site on several occasions and where the intervention level, as set out in its policy, has been met, it has agreed to carry out repairs. In the parts of the road which do not meet the intervention level it has said it will continue to monitor the surface in its overall inspection programme. It has decided this as the Highways Authority, basing this decision on its experience, professional expertise and relevant information taken at the site visit.
11. As the Council has considered relevant factors in its decision-making process, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint.
12. If Mr Y wishes to challenge this professional view, he may wish to approach the court. 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 and threshold for repair is not set out in law and is open to interpretation.
13. If a person considers that a highways authority has failed to maintain a highway it is responsible for, the person affected can apply to the Magistrates court for an order under section 56 of the Highways Act 1980. This order requires the highways authority to carry out the work needed to the highway.
14. Mr Y may use this process to try to get the Council to repair the road if he wishes to challenge the Council’s decision not to repair other parts of the road. There might be some cost to court action. However, that does not mean it is unreasonable to take court action. Also, reasonable adjustments can be made for access to the service if necessary. It is therefore reasonable for Mr Y to be expected to go to court about this matter.
15. Further, the court is in the best position to decide whether the Council has met its legal duty to maintain the highway. Also, unlike the Ombudsman, the court can order the Council to do the required work, so it is better placed than us to consider the complaint. We will therefore not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because the courts and insurers are better placed to consider the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman