Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of a road because it is reasonable for Mr X to go to court.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has:
• failed to address highway disrepair which is causing damage to his property,
• installed a street light that impacts his health,
• handled his complaint poorly and failed to make reasonable adjustments in its communications with him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in March 2025. It says it did not receive a request for escalation from Mr X. However, Mr X says he has called the Council many times to escalate his complaint to no avail. Bearing this in mind and given the time passed since the complaint first arose, I consider it reasonable to exercise discretion on prematurity and consider Mr X’s complaint now.
8. Mr X has the right to apply to a Magistrates’ court for an order requiring the Council to take whatever action is needed to bring a highway up to standard. And only the courts can decide whether the Council is liable for any damage to Mr X’s property due to a failure to repair the highway. It is reasonable for Mr X to go to court and so I will not investigate.
9. The Council has explained in May 2025 it switched off a street light near Mr X’s property following his complaint this affected his health. The light was turned on in error in June and switched off again upon Mr X’s further complaint. Since then Council has added a note to the lighting column that it should remain off, to prevent recurrence. I will not investigate as any injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.
10. It is not a proportionate use of our resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling, including its handling of reasonable adjustments, when we are not investigating the substantive issues.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable for him to go to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman