Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to response to each point of Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to respond to each point of his complaint, especially around the health and safety issued her raised about unlevel road surface. Mr X says the issues has caused debris to his driveway from constant water flowing and passing vehicles have drenched his wife and children.

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 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

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 about the condition of the road near his home. He said there were several blocked drains, water pooled on the road, and passing vehicles splashed water onto his children. He said the Council had carried out temporary pothole repairs following his reports, but the problems returned within months.
6. In The Council considered Mr X’s complaint as a service request. It explained why it carries out temporary fixes and said:
• the road is subject to scheduled safety inspections, alongside all reports from the public being investigated via a site visit;
• staff have a set criterion to consider before a defect is deemed to be a safety defect;
• the gullies closest to Mr X’s property were last cleansed in July 2025 with no defects noted;
• low speed roads, gardens or open areas where there is no internal property, flooding would be categorised as minor and would not normally warrant investigation; and
• priority is given to locations with greatest ned and within constraints of available funding.
7. I do not consider there is enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation. The Council has explained how it inspects highway defects, how it decides whether defects need repair, and how it prioritises work. It also told Mr X how to report any new issues.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman