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

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council failed to repair a road outside of his property. Mr Y says the Council has failed to meet its duty under the Highways Act 1980 to maintain the road. He says a defect in the road causes vibrations to pass through his house. He is unhappy with the Council’s assessment of the defect in the road. He wants the Council to investigate the vibration caused to his property and repair the road to resolve the vibration issues.
2. Mr Y complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint. He says it refused to provide a formal complaint response.

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. 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)
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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council decided the defect in the road was not a safety issue. For this reason, the Council refused Mr Y’s request for the Council to repair the road. It suggested Mr Y contact his insurers about his claim that cracks in his property were due to the condition of the road.
9. Mr Y says the condition of the road has damaged his property and caused cracks to appear in his house. We do not normally investigate complaints about property damage caused by highway disrepair. This is because in effect such complaints are that an organisation has been negligent. Our role is to consider complaints of administrative fault. Negligence claims are best decided by an organisation’s insurers, and if needed, the courts. I find it is reasonable for Mr Y to follow this process and, if needed, seek a remedy in the courts. The initial fee for making a claim is relatively modest. So, we will not investigate this complaint.
10. It is not a proportionate use of our limited resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling alone. Any separable injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. We will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to take the matter to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman