Summary: Mr X complains the Council has failed to deal with charges for highways works properly. We found the Council at fault because it did not provide transparency about the invoiced costs. Mr X suffered uncertainty. The Council has already taken actions and agreed an appropriate remedy.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to deal with charges between February 2023 and July 2024 for highways works properly because invoices by the Council for a s278 small works application are not transparent and are disproportionate.
2. Mr X says he remains uncertain whether the charges invoiced are accurate.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
5. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law, guidance and policies

9. The Regulators’ Code came into statutory effect on 6 April 2014 under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 and provides a clear, flexible and principles-based framework for how regulators should engage with those they regulate.
10. Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 allows a Council to enter into an agreement that involves modifications to the public highway paid for, in full or in part, by someone else.

What happened?

11. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything we reviewed during our investigation.
12. Mr X entered into an s278 Small Works application process with the Council to make small scale changes to the highway.
13. Mr X complained to the Council in February 2024 that charges invoiced to him in respect of the s278 agreement were not transparent and were disproportionate.
14. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint under its three stage complaints procedure. The Council upheld parts of Mr X’s complaint and did not uphold others.
• At stage 2, the Council upheld Mr X’s complaint in relation to transparency about fees, guidance to applicants, provision of an estimate of costs and excessive charges.
• At stage 3, the Council upheld Mr X’s complaint that it had not provided its stage 2 complaint response in the correct timescales and did not outline how it would implement the stage 2 complaint response findings.
15. The Council also accepted that it had not provided a cost estimate it said it would in the stage 2 response in the stated timeframe.

Analysis

Regulator’s Code

16. In his initial complaint Mr X said he believed the Council was subject to the Regulator’s Code.
17. The Council accepted in its complaint response that its functions in respect of the s278 highways works were subject to the Regulator’s Code.
18. In its response to my enquiries, the Council later said it was not subject to the Regulator's Code and provided legal advice which explained this.
19. I have considered the legal advice provided. The advice appears to be cogent and it was appropriate for the Council to rely on it
20. I am happy the Council has followed a proper process in determining the Regulator’s Code does not apply to the s278 highways works which are central to Mr X’s complaint. I have therefore not investigated this aspect of Mr X’s complaint further.

Complaint responses

21. The Council’s stage 2 complaint response partially upheld some of Mr X’s complaint.
• It accepted that more could be done to improve transparency around fees and that no guidance on the likely scale of fees was available. The Council apologised and said it would make a credit to Mr X’s account of 10% of fees incurred.
• It said that although information required from Mr X was clearly signposted, more could be done to guide an applicant through the process. The Council said it would look to see if it could make improvements to its service to minimise costs and time delays.
• It accepted it had not provided an estimate of costs and said it would send this to Mr X within four weeks.
• It accepted that an element of costs for one specific part of the works was excessive. The Council said it would give Mr X a 60% rebate of the costs of this element.
22. The Council’s stage 3 complaint response said the stage 2 complaint response addressed the issues of costs Mr X had complained about. It also accepted that there had been a delay to the stage 2 complaint response and that it had not detailed how the credit it had offered would be applied to Mr X’s account.
23. The Council has upheld or partially upheld Mr X’s complaint about elements of the costs associated with the s278 highways works. This is fault by the Council.

Charging model

24. Mr X remains unhappy with the charging system the Council uses. There is no requirement on the Council to adopt and use any specific charging system.
25. The Council says section 278 schemes are assigned an individual time code, which is unique and every officer working on that scheme will time charge their hours to that code.  There is also a sub-code drop down to further categorise the activity being carried out. We have seen the latest summary of the charges relevant to Mr X’s account provided by the Council.
26. Mr X may believe he has not received value for money and will clearly have been frustrated by the lack of transparency and inconsistent information provided. But there is no evidence to doubt the accuracy of the final information provided, which Mr X has agreed. On the balance of probabilities, this is correct. This is not fault by the Council.

Complaint handling

27. The Council accepted that its stage 2 complaint response was delayed and lacked specificity in places. This is fault by the Council.

Council remedies

28. The Council has apologised, offered Mr X a credit to his account, offered Mr X a rebate for some charges and said it would provide a more detailed estimate of costs.
29. Mr X says the Council has not done everything it said it would do in its complaint responses since 2021. I have not considered those aspects from 2021 or 2022 because they relate to a separate historic complaint and are therefore late.
30. In the stage 3 complaint response the Council:
• apologised for the delay to the stage 2 complaint response.
• apologised for the lack of specificity about how credits would be applied to Mr X’s account.
• apologised for delays to the stage 3 complaint response.
• said it would provide a fee estimate and apologised for lack of information.
• said credits to Mr X’s account will be evident when the next invoice is raised, which was likely to be when the agreement is completed.
31. Mr X accepts the Council has sent a cost estimate to him, although he says it is ‘confused’. The Council said it would send a cost estimate and has done so. This is not fault by the Council.
32. The Council has since sent Mr X further amended and updated spreadsheets showing officer time and the tasks undertaken. The final spreadsheet in September 2025 showed the charges it had removed and those that remained outstanding.
33. Mr X agreed these final charges and the outstanding balance was deducted from the deposit held by the Council. The Council has returned the remainder of Mr X’s deposit with interest.
34. I consider the remedies already offered by the Council to be an acceptable remedy in respect of the fault found.

Back to top

Decision

35. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has already agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman