Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s programme of temporary repairs to highway defects. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s poor-quality repairs of some surface defects on roads in his area. He says that they deteriorate too quickly and do not represent value for money.

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
• 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 says repairs carried out to highway defects in his area are poor quality and deteriorate quickly. the Council responded to his complaints and said that the repairs he reported were temporary patches which were required due to frost/thaw conditions during winter months.
6. The Council as highway authority has to balance carrying out temporary repairs to high-priority reported faults against long-term resurfacing activity. The Council has a duty to maintain the highway and this includes repairing identified faults for safety reasons and to prevent legal claims being made against it for damage and personal injury. This means that quick repairs in poor weather maybe necessary even though they will not have the same longevity as a resurfacing repair.
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. It is not our role to determine the quality of workmanship for repairs to infrastructure. The highway authority must use the means available under its limited budget to take what action it believes is necessary to meet its statutory duties. Any concerns about how money is spent would be for council committees and auditors to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s programme of temporary repairs to highway defects. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman