Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about flooding and the subsequent deterioration of the public highway near his home. There is no significant personal injustice to Mr X which would justify an investigation, and our involvement would not lead to a different outcome. It is reasonable for Mr X to pursue the matter in court if he believes the Council has failed to maintain the public highway.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained to the Council about persistent flooding to a road near his home. Mr X said the flooding was causing the road’s surface to deteriorate. Mr X feels the Council is not addressing the cause of the problem and that routine cleansing carried out by the Council does not provide a solution.

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, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Mr X complained to the Council about the conditions of the rural road network close to his home. Mr X had previously complained in 2024. This had led to site visits by the Council and the local MP’s office. The Council had acknowledged the need for improvements.
7. Mr X feels the Council has taken no effective action with the roads’ condition having continued to worsen. Mr X says the conditions are a constant safety risk for road users and restrict reliable access to essential services – especially to vulnerable residents. Mr X wants the Council to provide a clear plan for repairs, drainage and flood mitigation measures, and a site visit completed by a senior officer.
8. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council:
• Acknowledged flooding issues have yet to be resolved.
• Said it considers the actions taken to be appropriate and proportionate.
• Confirmed the further works planned and that monitoring was to be arranged.
• Confirmed a CCTV survey would take place if the problem continued.
• Said it can demonstrate taking reasonable steps to ensure the highway is in a safe and serviceable condition through inspections and its record of works.
• Said it can display a robust strategy for managing the county’s road network.

Assessment

9. We recognise Mr X’s frustrations with the continuing flooding. But none of the issues complained about have caused Mr X significant personal injustice and do not therefore warrant us investigating. Also, considering the Council’s actions and its responses to Mr X’s concerns, we could not add anything to its investigation or achieve a different outcome.
10. Mr X’s complaint also refers to the general condition of the highway, including large potholes and the surface deteriorating. If Mr X considers the Council has failed to maintain a highway it is responsible for, he can apply to the Magistrates Court to make 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.
11. If the highways authority does not respond in time or does not accept responsibility for maintaining the road, the person may apply to the Crown Court for such an order.
12. The Court can best decide whether the Council has met its legal duty to maintain the highway. Unlike the Ombudsman, the Court can order the Council do the required work and is better placed to consider this point. It is therefore reasonable for Mr X to use this right.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate, Mr X’s complaint because:
• Mr X has not suffered a significant personal injustice from the matters complained about.
• We could not add to the Council’s own investigation and further investigation would not achieve a worthwhile outcome.
• It is reasonable for Mr X to pursue part of his complaint in court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman