Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to carry out works to a loose manhole cover in the highway. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to prevent a loose manhole cover in the highway near his home from causing noise nuisance. He says the Council told him that it is the responsibility of the utility company to replace the cover even though it has carried out a temporary repair which was insufficient.

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 he is being disturbed by the noise of traffic passing over a loose manhole in the highway near his home. He reported the problem to the council and it told him that it had passed the information to the water utility company who owns the ironwork in the carriageway. he was dissatisfied with this and made a complaint.
6. The Council responded and told him that it had sent three reminders to the water company who are responsible for replacing the cover. It carried out a temporary repair to the bedding of the tarmac around the cover but it cannot carry out replacement work. Mr X complained to us saying that he believes the Council is disregarding its responsibility to repair the highway.
7. The Council is the highway authority and it is responsible for maintaining the surface of the highway. However, the ironworks and other infrastructure within the highway is the responsibility of the utility company which owns them. The company will need to obtain a permit from the Council to carry out repair work to the cover and to make arrangements for closure or traffic control when this is undertaken.
8. The Council has informed the utility company and carried out what repairs to the surface around it which it can. There is no fault in the Council’s actions.
9. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to carry out works to a loose manhole cover in the highway. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman