Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that road re-surfacing works have caused a noise nuisance. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains she is suffering from increased noise nuisance from traffic after the Council re-surfaced the road where she lives. Mrs B says the Council used a different treatment for another road, which in effect is just a continuation of her road, and this surface is much quieter. Mrs B does not consider the Council has properly justified the different treatments used. Mrs B would like the Council to re-lay the road surface so it is the same as the quieter road.

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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by Mrs B and have viewed the area on Google maps and Streetview. I have also considered information on the Council’s website about the Council’s approach to road re-surfacing.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council says:
• It uses different surface treatments according to the circumstances of each road, such as its condition, how busy it is and the most efficient treatment for the future.
• It chose a surface dressing treatment for Mrs B’s road based on the road’s condition and usage. The other road was found to be in a more deteriorated condition so needed a full re-surfacing treatment.
• The noise levels on Mrs B’s road are within required standards.
• Noise levels from a new road surface typically reduce over time and the Council will continue to monitor the new surface as it settles.
7. It is for the Council as the local highways authority to decide how best to manage the highway network which it is responsible for. The Council has investigated Mrs B’s concerns and has explained why it used a different treatment compared with the road Mrs B has referred to. This was mainly because Mrs B’s road was in a better condition.
8. The information does not suggest the Council’s handling of this matter has been affected by fault. This means we cannot question the professional judgement of the Council’s highways officers about the type of re-surfacing treatment used for Mrs B’s road. So, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman