Summary: Dr X complained the Council has wrongly charged him to replace 10 paving slabs outside his house. We find the Council was at fault for how it made the decision to charge Dr X for 10 slabs. This fault caused Dr X frustration and upset. The Council has agreed to apologise to Dr X and review its decision.

The complaint

1. Dr X complained the Council has wrongly charged him to replace 10 paving slabs outside his house. He says the matter has caused stress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

The Highways Act 1980

7. This Act says if the footway of a street that is a highway maintainable at the public expense is damaged by or in consequence of any excavation or other work on land adjoining the street, the highway authority for the highway may make good the damage and recover the expenses reasonably incurred by them in so doing from the owner of the land in question or the person causing or responsible for the damage.

What happened

8. Dr X carried out some building works to his property between July to August 2024. He hired a skip for the works.
9. Dr X emailed the skip company after the works were complete and said it had damaged two paving slabs in front of his driveway when it collected the skip. The skip company responded and said it was happy to discuss the matter with the Council as it had evidence the paving slabs were already damaged.
10. Dr X contacted the Council and told it about the damage to the slabs. The Council visited the site in September and identified 10 paving slabs needed repairing. It sent Mr X an invoice at the end of October for £660.14 for the cost of repairing 10 slabs.
11. Dr X contacted the skip company and provided it with the invoice from the Council. The skip company responded and reiterated it had evidence the slabs were damaged before it came on site. It said it would be happy to provide the Council with this evidence.
12. Dr X queried the invoice with the Council. The Council responded and said it carried out a cyclical inspection in July 2024, and this showed the paving slabs were in a satisfactory condition before the works to his property. It said while some of the slabs were cracked historically due to aging, they did not require any intervention. It was satisfied his building works were the cause of the damage to 10 paving slabs.
13. Dr X provided the Council with a video of the pavement in his area. He also provided photographs. He said it was clear from his and its inspectors photographs the skip company did not damage 10 paving slabs. He said there was historic damage to the slabs, and the skip company only damaged three slabs. He also said it should invoice the skip company and not him.
14. The Council responded to Dr X’s complaint in December. It said as per the Highways Act 1980 it could only uncover expenses from him as the owner of the land. It provided him with photographs of the paving slabs outside his house from November 2022. It said this showed some cracks, but it did not warrant any intervention. Therefore, it was satisfied the section outside his property was in a satisfactory condition before the works at his property. It also said the highways inspector visited site in early September 2024 and found the damage was caused by the works at his property.
15. Dr X emailed the Council and said he was dissatisfied with its response. He said its photographs from November 2022 did not account for damage that occurred over the subsequent months. He asked the Council to provide photographs which showed the paving slabs in front of his property were not damaged before the works.
16. The Council issued its final response to the complaint in February 2025. It said it did not have photographic evidence of the undamaged footway outside his property before the building works. However, it did not identify any issues with the paving slabs in the previous cyclical inspection. Therefore, its decision remained the same.

Back to top

Analysis

17. Dr X says the Council has provided no evidence to support its position he is liable for the damage to 10 paving slabs. He maintains the skip company only damaged three slabs when it collected the skip. The Council says it carried out a cyclical inspection in November 2023, and it did not find any significant damage to the paving slabs. It also says Dr X admitted some slabs were damaged when the skip company collected the skip. Therefore, it considers it is likely the damage to 10 paving slabs was because of the works at Dr X’s property.
18. Dr X provided a photograph (Photograph A) he took one day after the skip company delivered the skip. He has provided another photograph (Photograph B) when the skip company collected the skip. In Photograph A, there are cracks in most of the paving slabs outside Dr X’s property. In Photograph B, there appears to be some further cracks to some, but not all, of the paving slabs.
19. I cannot see from the Council’s responses that it analysed the photographs Dr X provided. This is fault. It relied on the cyclical inspection in November 2023 and its further inspection from September 2024. However, what I would have expected to see is the Council’s analysis and commentary of the photographs Dr X provided he took before and after the skip collection. There is no such evidence. The Council is entitled to make its own decision, but it should do so properly and with regard to all the evidence. I am not satisfied it has done so. This has caused Dr X frustration and upset. He cannot be satisfied the Council has considered his case fairly.
20. The Council said it was acting in line with the Highways Act 1980 by sending the invoice to Dr X as the owner of the property and not the skip company. The Act says the Council can recover the expenses from the owner of the land in question or the person causing or responsible for the damage. However, the Council implemented a new policy in 2023. This policy says it will recover costs from the owner of the land, rather than the person responsible. It says the owner of the land is responsible for building activities taking place on their land. Therefore, the Council has acted in line with its policy by pursuing Dr X for the damaged paving slabs. I do not find fault.

Back to top

Action

21. By 13 November 2025 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Dr X for the injustice caused by fault in this statement.
• Review how many slabs to charge for (with particular attention to Dr X’s photographs). It should write to Mr X with its decision and rationale once it has completed the review.

22. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

23. There was fault by the Council, which caused Dr X an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman