Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's management of highway maintenance. This is because the complaint lies outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council's management of highway maintenance in his local area. He says he requested evidence of a long-term strategy to reduce potholes and improve road condition, but the Council provided only information about its operational processes. He is concerned about road safety, potential vehicle damage, and the use of public funds. He wants the Council to provide an evidence-based response addressing these wider issues, including any strategic plans, targets, and performance measures, and to be more transparent in its handling of complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
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 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 and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council responded to Mr X's complaint and explained that it maintains the highway network in line with its established processes. It outlined its approach to highway inspections, maintenance and contract management, including routine inspections, planned maintenance programmes and contractor monitoring. Mr X remained dissatisfied because he considered the Council had not addressed his concerns about its longer-term strategy for improving road conditions, reducing repeat failures and ensuring the effective use of public funds.
9. We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council's management of highway maintenance because it concerns matters that affect all or most people living in the Council's area. These issues therefore fall outside our jurisdiction.
10. Also, Mr X has not shown that the alleged fault has caused him a significant personal injustice. His concerns focus on the Council's overall management of highway maintenance, road conditions and use of public funds, rather than on any specific injustice he has suffered as a result of a particular highway defect.
11. In addition, where a complaint concerns whether a council has complied with its statutory duty to maintain the highway, we generally consider the courts are better placed to decide the issue. A person can apply to the magistrate’s 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.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We cannot investigate Mr X's complaint, because the complaint lies outside our jurisdiction, we cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman