Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s management of roadworks in its area. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to properly co-ordinate roadworks within its area. He says that multiple simultaneous works causes significant inconvenience to drivers and that the Council should ensure that works are better planned.

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
• 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’s response.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says the Council has little apparent co-ordination of roadworks in his area,. He says that several works take place at the same time making car travel longer than normal and adding to congestion. He complained to the Council and asked what measure it was taking to schedule works for the benefit of residents.
6. The Council says that it co-ordinates planned works by its own contractors and developers where this is possible but that it cannot predict works carried out by utility companies at short notice. When utility companies ask for licences to close or restrict roads for important infrastructure works it has to issue a licence so that the works can be done. Failure to do so would impact energy and water supplies and other important infrastructure for residents.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
8. The Council as highway authority has a duty to maintain the public highways system. However, it must make allowances for infrastructure work to carried out promptly.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s management of roadworks in its area. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman