Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to charge him for cleaning the road after a fuel spillage. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to charge him for cleaning the road after a fuel spillage from his car. He said the recovery truck he contacted treated the spillage with absorbent material and the Police confirmed the road was safe. Mr X said it was the Council’s decision to send a crew after the road was made safe, therefore he should not be charged.

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 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)
3. 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

4. I discussed the complaint with Mr X.
5. I made enquiries with the Council and considered its response.
6. Mr X and the Council both had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Highways Act 1980 gives the Council the power to reclaim any costs in relation to damage of the highway. That could be costs incurred after an accident, where the road surface has been damaged, or the cost of cleaning the road after a vehicle breakdown.
8. In July 2017, Mr X’s car broke down late at night after the fuel line snapped. Mr X contacted the Police and told them about the fuel spill. He also called for a recovery truck.
9. After receiving Mr X’s call, the Police contacted the Council and told them it had had a report of a fuel spillage. The Council sent its highways emergency response team to attend the scene.
10. The recovery truck driver arrived at 22:45. They treated the road with absorbent granules and removed the vehicle. Mr X said the Police confirmed the road was safe.
11. The Council’s highways emergency response team arrived at 23:45. They also applied absorbent granules to the fuel spill before removing the contaminated material.
12. In February 2018, the Council sent Mr X a bill of £274.61 for the cost of making the road safe following the spill. Mr X challenged the Council’s payment request. The Council said that if he could provide evidence that he had paid for the appropriate absorbent materials to put on the road, it would ask the highways team if it could offset that against the invoice.
13. Mr X sent the Council a letter from the recovery company stating it had put granules on the road and the attending Police Officer had confirmed the safety of the road. He said he did not want the cost of the granules offset, but the charges fully withdrawn. The Council did not agree to withdraw the charges.
14. In June 2019, Mr X complained. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. It said after the incident was reported to the Council, it was duty bound to attend the site and make sure the road was safe. That required two operators working outside normal hours to clear the spill. It said the Council had not changed its view that Mr X was responsible for the Council’s costs.
15. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response and complained to the Ombudsman.

My findings

16. The Ombudsman 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.
17. Mr X said as it was the Council’s decision to send out an emergency response crew, he should not have to pay for it. The Council sent out the crew after it received a report of a fuel spill from the Police. As the Council was responsible for the safety of the road, it followed correct procedure by deploying a crew to make the road safe. The Council said that the crew attending site applied absorbent materials, which then had to be removed from the road. The Council’s decision to send out the crew was not fault.
18. Under the Highways Act 1980, the Council is fully entitled to reclaim its costs from Mr X. As there was no fault in the Council’s decision to send out the crew, there is no fault in its decision to charge Mr X for this.

Back to top

Final decision

19. The Council was not at fault for asking Mr X to pay road cleaning charges after his car had a fuel leak therefore I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman