Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to adopt her road, that it has not reconsidered its decision and been unhelpful, unsupportive and misleading. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s road adoption decision-making process to warrant us investigating. There is insufficient evidence of the Council causing Miss X injustice to justify an investigation. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable for her from investigating the Council’s approach during the matter. We also cannot achieve the outcome she seeks.

The complaint

1. Miss X bought a property on an unadopted road. She and other residents have been working to get the road adopted by the Council, their local highways authority, so it will take on future responsibility for the road’s maintenance.
2. Miss X complains the Council has:
1. prevented her and her neighbours’ from getting their street adopted;
2. refused to reconsider its decision now she says residents have resolved an earlier issue with a sewer;
3. been unhelpful, unsupportive and misleading.
3. Miss X says she and others have spent much time on the matter over many years. This and the Council’s unhelpful approach she says has caused her distress, stress and upset. Miss X says other residents have been unable to sell their houses because the road is not adopted and she feels trapped. The outcome she wants is for the Council to adopt her street.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Miss X, relevant online maps and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. We are not an appeal body. We may only criticise a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in its decision-making process and but for that fault officers would have made a different decision. So we consider the processes councils have followed to make their decisions. We cannot replace a council’s decision with our own or someone else’s opinion if the decision has been reached after following proper process.
8. In response to Miss X and her neighbours seeking their road’s adoption, Council officers considered the information about the location. Miss X says she and other residents have resolved with another body a key issue of an underground sewer or culverted watercourse which runs underneath the site. The Council considers the presence of the watercourse is a problem, and is the main reason why it has decided not to adopt the road. After assessing the matter, officers determined adopting the road would make the Council responsible for the ‘significant structural issue’ they consider the underground watercourse’s causes in the location.
9. Highways authorities are not required to adopt a particular road into their networks and take responsibility for its future maintenance and upkeep. It is for officers to consider the information for each adoption request and decide whether their authority should adopt the road. Officers assessed the relevant information about the road and the watercourse here and gave their reasons why the Council will not adopt Miss X’s road. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision‑making process here to warrant us investigating. We recognise Miss X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
10. If Miss X believes she has new information about the underground watercourse since the Council made its final decision on her complaint in May 2024, she should send it to the Council for its consideration. It would then be for the Council to decide whether that information changes its decision. This would require a new Council decision, so if Miss X disagrees with it, she would need to complain to the Council first before bringing the matter to us.
11. We understand Miss X is upset at the situation, is concerned about selling her property, and has spent a lot of time and effort trying to resolve the matter. But the road not being adopted and this limiting the number of interested future buyers were potential outcomes at the time she chose to buy the property. They were risks she took when deciding to buy on an unadopted road. Getting a road adopted will always take time and effort from residents, irrespective of whether the outcome of that work is successful. There is insufficient evidence of the Council’s actions or inactions causing Miss X’s claimed injustices here to warrant us investigating.
12. We note Miss X considers the Council has been unhelpful, unsupportive and misleading in how it has dealt with the matter. The Council disputes this. The core issue here in Miss X’s complaint is the Council’s road adoption decision. Miss X is not seeking any remedy here other than the road’s adoption, which indicates the adoption decision is the core matter for her. There is no worthwhile outcome achievable for Miss X here by us investigating the Council’s alleged attitude during the matter. An investigation would not alter the Council’s decision on the road adoption issue.
13. The outcome Miss X seeks from her complaint is for the Council to adopt her road. We cannot order highways authorities to adopt roads into their networks. That we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants from her complaint is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process when not adopting the road to warrant us investigating; and
• there is insufficient evidence of the Council’s actions or inactions causing her injustice to warrant us investigating; and
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable from investigating her complaint about the Council’s approach during the road adoption matter; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome she seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman