Summary: Mr X complains the Council is wrong to have decided it should not grit his road and so will not remove snow during icy conditions. He has particular concerns given the number of disabled or vulnerably people living nearby. The Ombudsman found no evidence of fault in the Council’s approach. Mr X disagrees with decisions the Council was entitled to make but that is not evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council is wrong to have decided it should not grit his road and so will not remove snow during icy conditions. He says the Council has failed to take account of the number of disabled or vulnerable people living on the road and its refusal to consider any gritting at all is a failure to make a reasonable adjustment. He complains it is also contrary to the Highways Act.
2. Mr X is concerned about the risk of injury to himself as a result of the Council’s decision not to act.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read Mr X’s correspondence with the Council and the Ombudsman. I also discussed his complaint in a telephone call. I then wrote to the Council to make enquiries and reviewed the information it sent in response.
6. I have seen the Council’s ‘Winter Service Plan’, which is dated 2016/17. The Council says it is still current. This explains its approach to treated roads when there is snow or icy conditions.
7. I shared a copy of my draft decision with Mr X and the Council and I invited them to comment on it.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr X lives on a road in the Council’s area. He says he is disabled, his road has sheltered housing and is home to several elderly, vulnerable or disabled residents. The road itself is a residential street with a slope, has a 30mph speed limit and is near to but is not itself a main road.
9. Mr X complains his road is never treated with salt and grit during bad winter weather, even though some nearby roads are. He described to the Ombudsman how he thinks the road becomes dangerous to pass when there is snow and ice.
10. Mr X says he once had to abandon his car further from his house than he normally would because of this. He also describes how an ambulance has previous tried and failed to enter the road to attend to a neighbour during snowy weather.
11. Mr X believes the Council is not fulfilling its legal duty under the Highways Act to ensure safe passage along his road when there is snow and ice. He also accuses the Council of not taking account of the fact there are so many vulnerable people in the immediate area. He says the Council should make a reasonable adjustment to its winter road treatment policy to enable his road to be treated.
12. The Council says it has to choose which roads to treat. It cannot do every single one in its area for reasons for practicality and available resources. It has divided its road network into three priority categories, which it outlines in its Winter Service Plan.
13. ‘Priority 1’ roads are main roads, some bus routes, steep roads and other locations where “safety becomes critical at an early stage”. ‘Priority 2’ roads are deemed “not as important” by the Council, but are “generally heavily used and therefore it is essential to maintain free movement for all traffic”. Every other road comes under ‘Priority 3’. These roads “will not normally be treated as part of routine operations”. The Council’s policy says they will only be treated when there is a “sustained period of severe snow conditions” and where it has already cleared higher priority routes.
14. The Council considers Mr X’s road to be part of the ‘Priority 3’ network. Some roads near to Mr X are on the ‘Priority 2’ network.
15. The Council says it accepts its legal duty to make reasonable adjustments so disabled people are not put to a substantial disadvantage. It says its Winter Service Plan already fulfils this requirement. It believes it shows it has planned ahead to ensure the greatest number of disabled people can still travel during wintry conditions in its area. It says it achieves this by clearing the most heavily used roads first. The Council told Mr X it would like to offer a “bespoke service to individual disabled people” but cannot due to limits on its resources.
16. The Council also explains it assesses roads when members of the public ask for grit bins to be installed. These assessments consider various factors about a road – including how steep it is, whether there are any sharp bends, whether the road goes down towards a main road and whether there is a “substantial population of elderly or disabled” people. It says when the duty officer decides whether to treat the ‘Priority 3’ network, it aims to attend to areas near grit bins first.
17. A Council officer assessed Mr X’s road where it meets two different junctions in January 2018. In each case the officer found the road did not score enough points to justify the installation of a grit bin.
18. The Winter Service Plan also describes how individual incidents can be responded to by the duty officer in charge. For example, it includes, “arranging the treatment of any areas not covered within the priority treated network as may be requested by emergency services…”

Back to top

Analysis

19. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to overturn decisions taken by the Council where trained and experienced officers have reached a conclusion relying on their professional judgement. If such a decision is taken, and it complies with the law, any government guidance and local policy, we will not find fault and so will not intervene. As we are not an appeals body, we cannot consider the evidence ourselves and reach our own conclusions about what we would or would not do when faced with the same circumstances.
20. Mr X points to Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 in his complaint. This law, specifically sub-section 1A, imposes a duty on local authorities to, “ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that safe passage along a highway is not endangered by snow or ice.” Mr X presents this as a strict duty. I disagree. The use of the term ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ clearly leaves scope for local authorities to develop a plan which suits their road network and resources.
21. No national guidance for local authorities has been published by the government on this topic. This means, for this complaint, I have considered whether the Council has followed its own policy. The Council decided, based knowledge of its roads, Mr X’s road should be part of the ‘Priority 3’ network. Taking account of the Council’s own definitions, I see no reason to disagree with this and find no evidence of fault.
22. Mr X believes, as there are more vulnerable people on his road than a typical road, the Council should take special account of that. The result of the two grit bin assessments carried out in January 2018 do not support his view. The Council says it looks for day centres, schools and community centres when trying to work out where there might be concentrations of vulnerable people. Mr X’s road did not meet those criteria.
23. I also note the Winter Service Plan allows for the emergency services to make reports to it if they come across particularly difficult conditions. I am satisfied the existence of this method shows the Council has considered this point.
24. Finally, I considered Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s position on making the reasonable adjustment he had requested. The policy in question already covers everyone in the Council’s area. The Ombudsman would not expect the Council to change a policy of this type to allow for one member of the public or, in this case, one road. We would though expect it to be able to show how it takes into account the needs of vulnerable residents.
25. Having reviewed the Winter Service Plan and the Council’s responses to Mr X, I am satisfied it has done so in respect of how it treats roads during wintry weather. It makes allowances for the needs of vulnerable residents in several ways. Mr X may believe the Council should go further but his disagreement with the current policy is not in itself evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

26. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s approach in this case.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman