Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the quality of highway maintenance repairs because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to take the matter to court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not respond to his request for highway repairs properly. He said it did not fully complete repairs he requested and the poor quality of workmanship made potholes worse.
2. Mr X also complained that motorists frequently parked on double yellow lines on the same street.
3. He said he is nervous when driving and walking. He wants the Council to repaint all road markings, fill in potholes and issue Penalty Charge Notice’s (PCN’s) to motorists parked on double yellow lines.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
6. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X complained to the Council about potholes and faded road markings. In its complaint response the Council said it raised a works order to repaint the road marking and a contractor would complete a works order for carriageway repairs. Following the completion of the work Mr X said the quality of the repairs was poor and did not resolve the safety issues.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. If a person considers that a highways authority has failed to maintain a highway it is responsible for, including that repairs already carried out are insufficient or of too poor quality, the person affected can apply to the Magistrates court for an order under section 56 of the Highways Act 1980. This order requires the highways authority to carry out the work needed to the highway. The court is in the best position to decide whether the Council has met its legal duty to maintain the highway, and it is reasonable for Mr X to use this right.
11. Mr X complained that motorists parked on double yellow lines. In its complaint response the Council said it would reinstate road signs which would assist the enforcement process. It said Civil Enforcement Officers (CEO’s) would carry out regular patrols. It explained it could not maintain a permanent presence but provided Mr X with the details on how to report illegal parking. It said CEO’s would attend as soon as possible after receiving a report. The Council responded to Mr X’s concerns and clearly set out the actions it would take. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify the Ombudsman’s involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to take the matter to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman