Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of a road. Any injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. It is also unlikely we would find fault or that an investigation would add to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. Mr X disagrees with the Council’s choice of materials it used to repair a footpath outside his home. He says it will spoil the look of the street. He further complains the Council spray painted on his property. He wants the Council to use slabs to repair the footpath and remove the spray paint from his property.

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, or
• 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.

(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 its decision to use Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM) to repair the footpath outside his home. He wanted to know why the Council decided to use DBM instead of paving slabs to match the footpath.
6. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the material the Council use to repair a footpath. That is because I do not consider Mr X has suffered loss, harm or distress. In addition, the Council is entitled to decide what materials it uses to carry out its duties. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
8. Mr X said the Council provided misleading explanations for its decision after he complained. It is not a good use of public resources to look at complaint handling where we are not investigating the substantive matter.
9. The contractors conducting the works outside Mr X’s home sprayed spray paint on his wall. The Council worked quickly to get it removed and reminded staff to take care when carrying out works near people’s properties. It is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to this response or lead to a different outcome for Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not enough to warrant our involvement. It is also unlikely we would find fault or that an investigation would add to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman