Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway repairs because there is not enough evidence of fault and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how a complaint was dealt with where we are not investigating the substantive issue.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council wrongly carried out work outside his home without prior notice, plans or risk assessments and caused damage during the work to his property. Mr Y says the Council has then failed to take the matter seriously after he complained and have made irrelevant remarks in its complaint responses.
2. Mr Y says he was left anxious by the lack of information and potential damage to his property and feels the complaint response was upsetting. He feels his confidence in the Council has been undermined and he feels disrespected.

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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y has complained the Council failed to give him prior notice of works, copies of plans and risk assessments before starting highway maintenance work on the road outside his property. There is no duty which requires the Council to inform residents of highway maintenance prior to the start of work on the public highway outside their property.
7. In this case, Mr Y was made aware of the works before they began as the Council contacted Mr Y about the works before they started. This was sufficient to make Mr Y aware that the works would be happening. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation. Further, the Council is not under an obligation to provide Mr Y with copies of plans or risk assessments before starting such a project. While Mr Y may have preferred to have such information, it is unlikely that we would find fault in the Council not providing it where there is no duty to do so. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault in this complaint to justify investigating.
8. Mr Y has told us his property was damaged during the works, in particular a drainpipe which appears to have been removed in part. The legislation from which the Ombudsman takes their power also places some restrictions on what we may investigate. One of these concerns negligence claims about damage to property. We cannot determine liability claims for negligence. These are legal claims which may only be determined by insurers or the courts.
9. As we cannot decide liability or award damages, any claim for damages, such as costs for repairs, which Mr Y considers the Council to be responsible for, are matters more appropriately dealt with by the courts or by the Council’s insurers. We will not investigate this complaint.
10. As we are not investigating the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with or responded to Mr Y’s complaint and we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how a complaint was dealt with where we are not investigating the substantive issue.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman