Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the usability of Mr X’s stop-tap after re-surfacing of a pavement by the Council. This is because there is not enough evidence of significant injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about work done by the Council to resurface a pavement outside his house. Mr X says the Council left it covered in rubble, making it inaccessible. Mr X worries he will be unable to turn off his water supply in an emergency. Mr X wants the Council to sort out the necessary repairs or get the water company to do so.

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 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained to the Council after discovering he could no longer access or use the stop-tap for his home located under the pavement outside. The Council confirmed it had attended on two occasions to clear the rubble. The workers discovered some build-up of material around the tap and could not get it working.
6. The responsibility for maintaining a stop-tap on public land lies with the water company in any given area. The Council is responsible for ensuring utility covers remain accessible when doing pavement repairs.
7. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. There is no evidence Mr X has needed to shut off his water at the stop-tap but been unable to. I appreciate Mr X is worried about what might happen if he should need to do so. However, this is not a significant enough injustice to justify the public expense of an investigation.
9. Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council took appropriate action to remedy the issue within its remit by removing the rubble. Maintaining or repairing the stop-tap lies with the water company, and I see no good reason Mr X cannot contact the water company to request this.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman