Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled his complaint about a highways defect. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not follow its complaints procedure properly. He says the Council's rigid interpretation of its policy meant it did not handle his complaint appropriately. He says he had to escalate the matter to the Chief Executive before he received a response, which caused frustration.
2. Mr X wants the Council to apologise, ensure it handles complaints in line with its policy, and carry out a permanent repair to the highway defect.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X contacted the Council through social media to report a highway defect and later complained about the Council's handling of the matter.
7. The Council said it treated Mr X's social media contact as a service request rather than a formal complaint. It explained that reports of potholes and highway defects are dealt with as service requests. The Council's complaints procedure sets out the channels people should use to make formal complaints.

8. Following Mr X's report, it arranged an inspection of the highway defect. The inspection concluded the defect did not meet the Council's intervention criteria for repair. The Council explained to Mr X that routine repairs are carried out to address immediate highway safety issues, while more substantial permanent works are considered separately through planned maintenance programmes.
9. I understand Mr X was frustrated that he did not receive a direct response before escalating the matter to the Chief Executive. However, the Council considered the substantive issue he raised and arranged an inspection. Therefore, any injustice arising from the way the Council handled the matter is limited and not significant enough to justify an investigation.
10. Mr X complained the Council did not handle his complaint properly. We do not normally investigate complaint handling as a standalone issue where we are not investigating the underlying matter. In this case, we are not proposing to investigate the substantive issue of the highway defect. It would therefore not be a good use of public resources to investigate the Council's complaint handling separately.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman