Summary: Mr X complained about the Council repairing a highway kerb to prevent pooling outside a private house. He says this was a waste of public funds. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of any fault which has caused injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council carrying out a roadside repair to prevent puddling which resulted in the highway verge being difficult for pedestrians to use. He says this was a waste of public money and has made the footway on the grass verge impassable. He wants the Council to return the site to its previous state.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint. I have also considered the Council’s response. Mr X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says the Council dug out the roadside verge and constructed kerbing outside a private property which led to the grass verge being disrupted for pedestrians. He says the Council only acted after it received a solicitor’s letter from the householder whose home was being flooded by run-off from the highway and it had no duty to spend taxpayer’s money on such an expensive solution.
5. The Council says the pooling of surface water was causing a highway issue and that it installed the kerbing to resolve the problem for road traffic and the householders who were suffering from it. The grass verge is not part of the footway as there is no footway on this part of the highway. It re-instated the verge as best it could following the works, even though the verge is unregistered land.
6. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide where highway works are carried out and the extent of them, that is the responsibility of the highway authority. The Council has given Mr X a satisfactory explanation for why it carried out the works and that there was not pedestrian footway at that point.

Back to top

Final decision

7. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of any fault which has caused injustice to Mr X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman