Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s maintenance of a local road. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr X to go to court, and the court is better placed to consider the matter.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to properly maintain the highway outside his property. He says there are numerous potholes in the road, which cause severe disturbance to his family when heavy goods vehicles strike the potholes. Mr X says he has reported the defects to the Council multiple times, but the Council has not repaired the road to a reasonable standard. He complains about the Council’s handling of his repeated complaints over the last three years.
2. Mr X complains, despite knowledge of the poor road surface, the Council continues to give National Highways permission to use the road as a diversion route when motorway works are being undertaken and surrounding motorways are closed during the night.
3. Mr X wants the Council to repair the road surface to an acceptable standard.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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, 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

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. In December 2025, Mr X complained to the Council about the defects in the road.
10. In March 2026, following Mr X’s complaint, the Council carried out repairs to address the reported road defects. It said the repairs should have resolved the issues.
11. Mr X says the issues he has complained about have been ongoing for several years. He complained to the Ombudsman in March 2026, meaning we would not usually look at issues before March 2025. So far as Mr X complains about matters before March 2025, this part of the complaint is now late. I have not seen any good reasons to exercise discretion to consider the late part of Mr X’s complaint. So, we will not investigate.
12. In any event, if Mr X considers that the Council is failing to maintain a highway it is responsible for, he 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.
13. There might be some cost to court action. However, that does not mean it is unreasonable. There is often financial assistance to those on a low income from HM Courts and Tribunal Service. It is therefore reasonable to expect Mr X to use his right to go to court about this matter.
14. Further, unlike the Ombudsman, the court can order the Council to do the required work, so it is better placed than us to consider the complaint. For these reasons, we will not investigate.
15. In its complaint response, the Council considered Mr X’s complaint about the use of the road as a diversion route. It explained that it could not restrict the use of a designated diversion route based solely on temporary disruptions. Rather, when agreeing such diversion routes with National Highways, it said the Council must use roads that could safely handle the expected traffic volumes. It said it made such decisions after considering national and local traffic management requirements. The Council provided Mr X with clear reasons for its decision to use the road as a diversion route. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process. So, we will not investigate.
16. It is not a good use of our limited resources to investigate the Council’s complaint or report handling alone when we are not considering the substantive issues. Any separable injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. We will not investigate this as a standalone issue.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about maintenance of a local road. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to go to court, and the court is better placed to consider the matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman