Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaints about the Council’s decision that a highway serving her property does not require repairs, and how it communicated its decision. The law allows Ms X to take the core highway maintenance matter to the Magistrates’ court, which it would not be unreasonable for her to do. This takes her repairs complaint outside of our jurisdiction. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s communication of its decisions, nor sufficient significant personal injustice stemming from this issue, to warrant us investigating.

The complaint

1. Ms X lives on a rural road which serves several properties. She complains the Council has:
1. refused to fix the defects in the road;
2. previously done substandard repairs to the road;
3. fixed other roads serving fewer properties or with less significant repair needs;
4. misused or poorly allocated public funds for road maintenance;
5. provided inconsistent replies regarding its inspections and repair decisions;
6. not been transparent in how it prioritises and conducts repairs.
2. Ms X wants the Council to do a proper inspection of the road and do lasting repairs to the road, to a satisfactory standard, to ensure all services have safe access to the properties it serves.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
5. 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
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Ms X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The core issue in Ms X’s complaint is the Council’s decision not to do repairs to the road serving her property. The Council inspected the road in response to reports about its condition in spring 2025. Officers did not consider the condition of the road in its location on their network warranted any work funded from its highways resources. Ms X disputes the Council’s position that the road is in an acceptable condition and does not require repairs. Ms X’s view is the Council has not maintained the road to an acceptable standard and is still not doing so, and she wants it repaired.
8. There are no statutes or regulations prescribing the standards to which authorities should maintain their highways. Caselaw indicates it is a highway authority’s general duty to reasonably maintain and repair the highway so that it is free of danger to all users who use it in the way normally to be expected of them.
9. We cannot determine whether a highway authority such as this Council has failed to properly maintain an adopted road. This is a matter for the courts to determine. The law gives people the right to apply to a Magistrates’ court for an order requiring the authority to take whatever action is needed to bring the highway up to standard. The process involves someone serving a notice requiring the authority to repair the highway in question. The authority must reply, confirming if it is the authority responsible for the highway. If it is, the complainant then has six months to apply to the Magistrates’ court for an order under Section 56 of the Highways Act 1980. If the Magistrates agree the highway works must be done, their order would require the highway authority to do that work.
10. This right to put the road maintenance matter before a court takes Ms X’s core repairs complaint outside of our jurisdiction. It would be reasonable for Ms X to use this process as it is the one provided by national government to resolve road maintenance issues, and because the courts can issue a binding order on the parties, whereas any decision by us may only make recommendations to a highways authority. The court process would provide Ms X opportunity to make her case regarding the Council’s decision not to do repairs, the suitability of previous repairs, its prioritisation of other roads and use of its resources. There are no circumstances preventing Ms X from taking this route to get the repairs outcome she seeks here, so we will not investigate this complaint.
11. We note Ms X has made other complaints related to the Council’s communication of its decisions and transparency of its process. There may have been some confusion over the Council’s position regarding the repairs because it closed a second disrepair report after receiving another a few days earlier. But the Council’s complaint response explains its decision in line with its repairs policy and provides a link to the policy it used. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s communication or transparency of its decision to warrant us investigating. In any event, these secondary issues do not cause such significant personal injustice to Ms X to justify us investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• it would not be unreasonable for her to take the road maintenance matter to the Magistrates court, which takes the core matter outside our jurisdiction; and
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s communication of its decision, nor significant personal injustice stemming from this issue, to warrant us investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman