Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council’s management of repairs to a local road. This is because Mr C has not suffered a significant personal injustice as a result of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. Mr C complains the Council closed a local road in June 2025 to repair potholes. But, the Council did not repair many dangerous potholes and closed the road again in February 2026 to repair the remaining potholes. Mr C considers the Council is wasting public money by repairing potholes in this way. Mr C says the Council’s failure to repair potholes properly is also a risk to local road users.
2. Mr C also says the Highways department responded to his complaint about this issue, even though he had complained to the Chief Executive. And, the Council will not accept a new complaint from him about this matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)
5. 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mr C.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council’s management of the planned repairs to this road in June 2025 and February 2026. This is because Mr C has not suffered a significant personal injustice as a direct result of the alleged fault by the Council.
9. And, we cannot investigate complaints which affect all or most residents in a council’s area. So, we cannot investigate a complaint that a council is wasting public money because this issue affects all council tax payers in a council’s area.
10. In addition, it is for each local highways authority to decide how best to maintain its highway network including the management of road closures and planned repairs. It is not our role to tell a council how it should be performing this highway maintenance duty or audit how a council spends money on highway maintenance.
11. Generally, we take the view the courts are in the best position to decide whether a council has complied with this statutory duty to maintain a highway.
12. The courts would normally make such a decision when a person takes a council to court to pursue a compensation claim for vehicle damage or personal injury caused by highway disrepair. Or, a person can apply to the magistrates court for an order to be made under section 56 of the Highways Act 1980 if they consider a highway is in disrepair. This order requires the highways authority to carry out the work needed to the highway.
13. So, we will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council’s handling of this highway maintenance issue.
14. Mr C also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaints. It is not normally a good use of our limited resources to start an investigation solely into a council’s handling of a complaint if, as with this complaint, we are not investigating the main issue complained about.
15. We would not normally criticise a council for referring a complaint to the department involved, which would have the relevant knowledge and expertise to provide a response, or for not accepting a new complaint about an issue which has previously been considered.
16. An investigation solely into the Council’s handling of Mr C’s complaints is not justified.
17. So, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because he has not suffered a significant personal injustice and the courts are in the best position to decide whether a council has met its statutory duty to maintain the highway.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman