Summary: Mr D complained about maintenance, and management of a bridge. The Ombudsman has discontinued the complaint because Mr D can go to court, and we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) disputes liability to maintain a bridge next to his home.
2. Mr D says a road runs over the bridge and, since he has ownership of the bridge, he should be able to restrict the vehicles accessing it. Mr D disputes the Council correctly adopted the road running over the bridge which prevents his ability to restrict access.
3. Mr D also says the Council has not considered the safety implications of large vehicles crossing the bridge.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. The Ombudsman investigates 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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or

• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have considered all the information Mr X provided and considered his response to the draft decision.
7. The Council also had opportunity to comment on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr D lives next to a bridge which the Council says he owns and should maintain. Mr D disputes this and says that if he owns the bridge, he should be able to restrict which vehicles access it.
9. The crux of this complaint is a dispute about property ownership. Mr D has also expressed concerns about whether the Council has adopted a road crossing a bridge he owns. Underlying this dispute is whether Mr D has a legal right of ownership or use over this road. That is not something the Ombudsman can consider, and Mr D can take the matter to court.
10. In addition, the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome sought by Mr D as it is not within our remit, and it links directly back to the ownership issue which is outside of our jurisdiction.
11. The Council completed an assessment of the bridge in 1995 and has completed routine inspections of the bridge every two years since. The 1995 assessment recommended the Council considers changing the road signs, for large vehicle traffic using the bridge, from advisory to mandatory. There is not enough evidence of the Council’s thinking from 1995 to justify an investigation.
12. Even if the Ombudsman had enough evidence to investigate, given the report placed a recommendation, rather than an obligation, on the Council, the Ombudsman would unlikely be able to find fault if the Council chose not to follow the recommendation.
13. For the reasons detailed in paragraphs 8 to 12 the Ombudsman will discontinue his consideration of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I have discontinued Mr D’s complaint because we cannot achieve the outcome Mr D wants and a court is better suited to consider Mr D’s concerns.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman