Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of a public highway. This is because Mr X had an alternative legal remedy available to him through the courts. Only the courts could have decided on this matter, unlike the Ombudsman, and could have ordered the Council to do the required work. It would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to have used this alternative remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to maintain a public highway close to his home despite saying it would carry out works.
2. Mr X says the matter caused significant time and trouble to pursue. Mr X and other residents also funded repairs to the highway.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. If a person considers that a highways authority has failed to maintain a highway, it is usually reasonable for the person affected to apply to the Magistrates’ Court for an order to be made under the Highways Act 1980. This order requires the highways authority to carry out the work needed to the highway. There might be some cost to court action. However, that does not mean it is unreasonable to take court action. 

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Final decision

7. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it would have been reasonable for him to have used his alternative legal remedy by taking the matter to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman