Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to approach the court about the matter, who as better placed than the Ombudsman to deal with the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council failed to replenish a number of bus stop markings in his area. Since he approached us, the Council has completed the work, but Mr Y is not satisfied with the quality of this.
2. Mr Y says he has had to repeatedly complain, wasting his time and efforts and he is concerned about safety being affected.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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. Since Mr Y contacted the Ombudsman, the work he requested in October 2022 has been completed by the Council. As the work has now been completed, which was the substantive issue and remedy sought, further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.
7. While the work has been completed by the Council, Mr Y is dissatisfied with the standard of the work done. Mr Y feels the quality of the markings is poor.
8. The Council as a local highways authority has a statutory duty to maintain adopted streets. The Council is expected to routinely monitor and carry out repairs where necessary. But, the level of maintenance and threshold for repair is not set out in law and is open to interpretation.
9. If a person considers that a highways authority has failed to maintain a highway it is responsible for, or that any maintenance works are substandard, the person affected can apply to the Magistrates court for an order to be made under section 56 of the Highways Act 1980. This order requires the highways authority to carry out the work needed to the highway.
10. Ms Y may use this process to try to get the Council to carry out any repairs or repeat the work if he feels the maintenance level is insufficient. There might be some cost to court action. However, that does not mean it is unreasonable to take court action. There is often financial assistance to those of a low income from HM Courts and Tribunal Service. Also, reasonable adjustments can be made for access to the service if necessary. It is therefore reasonable for Mr Y to be expected to use their right to go to court about this matter.
11. Further, the court is in the best position to decide whether the Council has met its legal duty to maintain the highway. Unlike the Ombudsman, the court can order the Council to do the required work, so it is better placed than us to consider the complaint. We will therefore not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to approach the court about the matter, who as better placed than the Ombudsman to deal with the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman