Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to install measures such as Trief kerbing to help prevent accidents in wet and icy weather which cause damage to Mr Y’s home.
2. Mr Y says he finds it stressful each year as vehicles repeatedly slip on the road outside his property, causing damage to his outside wall. He says this then leads to him having to deal with insurers and workmen each year to repair his property, increasing his home insurance premiums.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y complained to the Council about repeated accidents through his MP. The Council carried out a site visit to Mr Y’s property to consider the issue and the road.
7. Following its investigation, it wrote to Mr Y in July 2022, explaining it had found there was no safe and effective engineering solution which would prevent the accidents. It explained why Mr Y’s request for Trief kerbing was not appropriate for the location and said it had placed a sign at the top of the hill near Mr Y’s home to warn drivers and provide an alternative route in icy weather. It then referred Mr Y to us.

Analysis

8. 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.
9. In this case, the Council has decided to place a sign to warn drivers of the risk in icy weather, but said other action is not appropriate. It has done this by making a site visit, considering relevant factors including location, risk, and efficiency of measures using its professional opinion as the Highways Authority.
10. As it has properly considered the issue before making its decision, although Mr Y disagrees with the decision made, it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s response to Mr Y’s complaint about the road’s safety. As there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman