Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to reopen a public highway. This is because it is unlikely further investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more for Mr X. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice because of the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has allowed a public highway to remain closed to vehicles for around two years following the collapse of a wall. He says the Council has waited for a private landowner's insurer to carry out repairs and has not provided clear timescales or sufficient information about the delay. Mr X says the closure has increased his journey times and travel costs. He wants the Council to provide a clear, time-bound plan to reopen the road.

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,
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(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 Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Following the wall collapse, the Council closed the road to vehicles on safety grounds. Mr X complained the Council had delayed taking action to reopen it.
6. The Council explained it had pursued the matter with the private landowner's insurer for a prolonged period. However, after extensive correspondence, the insurer confirmed it would not carry out the repairs.
7. The Council told Mr X it was considering alternative options. These include carrying out the works itself and seeking to recover the costs from those responsible. The Council said any solution must also address access to neighbouring private land and significant engineering challenges at the site.
8. The Council recognised the inconvenience caused by the continued closure. However, it said it cannot provide a firm timescale because it has not yet determined the most appropriate way forward. The Council is aware of the issue, has explained its steps and is considering how to progress the necessary works. Therefore, it is unlikely further investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more for Mr X.
9. Mr X is unhappy with how long the matter has been going on for. While I understand the road closure has increased journey times for Mr X, I do not consider

I have added in no sig inj. I know the journey times have increased as he has to go 3 miles instead of 0.6 but I don’t think this would cause sig inj. Let me know if you think I am being too harsh!

the injustice suffered as a result would be significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely further investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more for Mr X. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman