Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take action over noise from an uneven road surface outside Mr X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to address noise and vibration from uneven surfacing on the highway outside his home. He says the noise and vibration is particularly noticeable early in the morning when HGV’s pass over it. He wants the Council to re-surface the carriageway to remedy the nuisance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s response.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained about noise from traffic passing over an uneven road surface outside his home. He made a complaint to us in 2023 but he says that following work by the Council in November 2024 the noise has remained.
6. Mr X made a further complaint to the Council and it told him that it had inspected the highway but the surface defects did not meet the 45mm depth which would trigger a reactive repair from its maintenance team. Councils as highway authorities have a duty under the Highways Act 1980 to ensure that the highway is maintained for vehicles and pedestrians to pass without restriction but this duty does not extend to adjacent private property.
7. The Council said in its final response to Mr X that it would include the surface of the highway outside his home in drainage resurfacing works at a nearby flyover but that it could not give a timeline for this as it would be dependent on the drainage works scheme.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. In this case the Council had no duty to repair the surface as a maintenance repair because it didn’t meet the criteria for intervention. It has suggested a reasonable remedy for Mr X which it was not obliged to provide and there is no reason for us to investigate the matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to take action over noise from an uneven road surface outside Mr X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman