Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing an invoice for repairs to the footway following damage caused during building works. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. We cannot determine legal liability for damages or negligence.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council issuing him with a bill for repair work to the pavement outside his home which it says was caused by a skip lorry recovering a skip during his building works. He denies responsibility for the damage and says the Council has misapplied the legislation in this case.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

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 received an invoice from the Council for over £2,300 for repairing damage to the footway caused when a skip lorry damaged the surface with outriggers when recovering a skip during building works. He told the Council that the skip contractor was responsible and that there were no works carried out which were near the property/highway boundary.
6. The Council told Mr X that it has photographic evidence of the skip lorry with outriggers on the footway where the damage was caused. The invoice includes costs for a temporary repair followed by replacement of the pavement slabs and permanent surface finish.
7. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council is the highway authority and it has powers under the provisions of the Highways Act 1980 to charge adjacent landowners for damage to the footway or carriageway. The Council is satisfied that the invoice was correctly served and Mr X says he is prepared to defend any legal action which may be used in recovery of the costs.
8. 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.
9. We cannot determine claims between highway authorities and private landowners as these are civil matters which can only be decided by insurers and the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing an invoice for repairs to the footway following damage caused during building works. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. We cannot determine legal liability for damages or negligence.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman