Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a council road surfacing programme. There is insufficient evidence of any significant personal injustice to Mr X caused by the Council’s actions which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council carrying out a surfacing treatment on a road where he lives. He says the surface used over the concrete road unsatisfactory and is showing signs of cracking. He also complained about unsightly patches on the footway outside his home. He says the project has been a waste of public resources and the contractor should be held to account.

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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s responses.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says that the Council wasted public money by applying a surface treatment to the road where he lives. He says the surface is unsuitable for concrete roads and the application is already showing signs of wear and that there are no plans to recoup the expense from the contractor or to carry out further work.
6. The Council disagrees with Mr X’s claims and says that the procedure is recognised nationwide. It says the work was approved by Council Members and that the application has been inspected and monitored by its officers. Mr X also complained about staining and patches on the footway outside his house. The Council says it will not offer any compensation or carry out further works.
7. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council is the highway authority and it has powers to decide what treatments should be applied to highways in its area. The works were approved by councillors and although Mr X may raise a complaint it is for the Council’s highways officers to determine what work is carried out. We do not investigate complaints about how council budgets are spent.
8. The footway is outside the boundary of Mr X’s private property and is part of the public highway. It is for the highway authority to decide whether any cosmetic works should be carried out to the surface and this does not cause any personal injustice to Mr X.
9. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about a highways road surfacing programme. There is insufficient evidence of any significant personal injustice to Mr X caused by the Council’s actions which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman