Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions during and following footpath maintenance. The Council has apologised and committed to taking action in response to the complaint. And there is otherwise no worthwhile outcome achievable.

The complaint

1. X complained about the actions of the Council’s contractor during recent footpath maintenance. She said she experienced poor communication and the Council’s contractor caused damage to her property. X also said the quality of resurfacing work was poor and the Council did not properly respond top her complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(1)(A) and 25(7), as amended).
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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. X raised several concerns with the Council, after contractors, working on its behalf had carried out resurfacing work on the footpath at her home. Her concerns were that;
• The contractors had caused damage to her property.
• She experienced poor communication, including the notice given of the works.
• The quality of the work was poor, and the Council had not resolved this.
7. The Council apologised for the poor communication and explained how it had taken steps to improve this with their contractor. It also said it would consider X’s comments about the quality of work when it next carried out an inspection.
8. We will not investigate X’s complaint. Firstly, the Council has responded to X’s complaint and said it had taken steps to improve communications; that is appropriate.
9. Secondly, we could not decide the Council, or its contractor, were liable for damages, or direct it to pay damages for property. Such a claim must be made firstly to the Council’s insurers, and then to the small claims court if liability is denied.
10. Finally, the Council as a local highways authority has a statutory duty to maintain adopted streets, but the level of maintenance, frequency of inspection, and threshold for repair is not set out in law and is open to interpretation. In cases where X believes the highways 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. Only the Council, or the Magistrates court, can direct remedial work to be completed, we cannot.
11. For the reasons I have outlined at paragraphs, 8-10, we will not investigate because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by us in investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate X’s complaint because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman