Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway verge maintenance because the court is better placed to consider to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to repair and properly maintain the verge outside his home. Mr Y says the Council has told him that the intervention level has not been met which Mr Y disagrees with.
2. Mr Y says the issue means he is unable to reach his vehicle as he is now unsteady walking due to ill-health, causing him frustration and inconvenience.

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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council has told Mr Y that while it saw on its site inspection, the verge is not aesthetically pleasing, it does not meet the Council’s levels of intervention under its policy. It explained the different levels the Council can classify issues and explained that in this case the issue was not a safety defect and therefore not needing action at this stage, but for future consideration. Mr Y was unhappy with this response and so approached us.
6. The Council as a local highways authority has a statutory duty to maintain adopted streets. This includes verges. 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, frequency of inspection, and threshold for repair is not set out in law and is open to interpretation.
7. 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 to be made under section 56 of the Highways Act 1980. This order requires the highways authority to carry out the work needed to the highway.
8. Mr Y may use this process to try to get the Council to repair the verge. There might be some cost to court action. However, that does not mean it is unreasonable to take court action. There is often financial assistance to those of a low income from HM Courts and Tribunal Service. Also, reasonable adjustments can be made for access to the service if necessary. It is therefore reasonable for Mr Y to be expected to use his right to go to court about this matter.
9. 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

10. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because the court is better placed to consider to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman