Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway repair because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council has failed to repair a loose kerb stone which he says is causing a safety hazard despite saying it would include the repair in future works. He is also unhappy with the lack of response to his complaint from the Council.
2. Mr Y says he is concerned for the safety of others as he says the kerb is a trip hazard and has found the complaint handling has caused him inconvenience.

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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))
5. 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

6. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y complained to the Council about a loose kerbstone in March 2025. The Council reviewed the issue and said the damage would be included for repair in future works. As Mr Y felt the damage to the kerbstone was becoming a safety hazard, he complained to the Council about a lack of repair in January 2026. He has since contacted the Council twice by telephone but has not received a response.
8. 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 a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
9. In this case, while Mr Y feels strongly about the matter, he has not suffered a serious loss or harm or upset as a result of his complaint. Consequently, we will not investigate.
10. Further, Mr Y has the right to go to court about the matter if he wishes to pursue it. Mr Y can apply to the Magistrates court for an order to be made under section 56 of the Highways Act 1980. This order requires the highways authority to carry out the work needed to the highway. It can also consider whether the Council has classified the road correctly where this is disputed.
11. If the highways authority does not respond in time or does not accept it is responsible for maintaining the road, the person may apply to the Crown court for such an order.
12. Ms Y may use this process to try to get the Council to repair the road. There might be some cost to court action. However, that does not mean it is unreasonable to take court action. There is often financial assistance to those of a low income from HM Courts and Tribunal Service. Also, reasonable adjustments can be made for access to the service if necessary. It is therefore reasonable for Ms Y to be expected to use her right to go to court about this matter.
13. Further, the court is in the best position to decide whether the Council has met its legal duty to maintain the highway. Also, unlike the Ombudsman, the court can order the Council to do the required work, so it is better placed than us to consider the complaint. We will therefore not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman