Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway repair works and the Council’s complaint handling. This is because there is not enough evidence of significant injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. In early 2025, Mr X complained to the Council about its contractors tipping tarmac planings on a yard near to where he lives after the contractors carried out repairs to the nearby road. Mr X complains the Council’s tipping of road waste caused additional dust, noise and nuisance at a site that was already subject to planning enforcement measures.
2. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman that the Council failed to respond to his complaint in line with its published complaints policy and related timescales.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
4. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X’s complaint has not completed the Council’s complaints process. But I consider the Council has had a reasonable opportunity to investigate and respond to Mr X’s complaint. I have therefore decided to exercise discretion on the prematurity of the complaint.
8. The Council explained to Mr X the Council likely temporarily deposited the material after carrying our highway maintenance works. It explained that such works are not subject to planning conditions and so it does not usually consult its planning services before carrying out works. In the event the Council needs to temporarily place materials outside of the adopted highways, its usual practice is to only seek permission from the relevant landowner.
9. While I appreciate the unexpected tipping of the tarmac planings by the Council may have caused Mr X frustration, any injustice experienced is not significant enough to justify our involvement. The impact of the landowner’s use of the site, which I understand led to the Council taking planning enforcement action, is a separate matter that falls outside the scope of this complaint about highway repair works. For these reasons, we will not investigate this complaint.
10. It is not a good use of our limited resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling alone when we are not considering the substantive matter. Any separable injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. So, we will not investigate this as a standalone issue.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about highway repair works and the Council’s complaint handling. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman