Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about the speed limit and state of the road outside his property. This is because Mr X’s injustice is not the result of fault by the Council and because it would be reasonable for him to take his concerns about highway disrepair and property damage to the courts.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of his requests to reduce the speed limit on his road. He is also unhappy about the state of the road surface. He says motorists speed along the road making it unsafe and that when vehicles hit potholes they cause damage to his property.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the Council’s response. I shared my draft decision with Mr X and considered his comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X has reported several road safety concerns to the Council and the Police since moving to his property in late 2019. The main issues concern speeding motorists, highway disrepair, surface water drainage and property damage.

Speeding motorists

6. Mr X asked the Council to reduce the speed along his road from 60mph to 30-40mph. The Council has declined Mr X’s request as it says this will not address the issue of speeding motorists and because the speed limit is in-line with its policy and local and national guidance.
7. While Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision it is not for us to question its merits. The Council is entitled to decide not to change the speed limit on the road and the injustice Mr X claims from the issue results from the actions of other motorists rather than the Council. Although the speed limit is currently 60mph Mr X reports that vehicles travel along the road at speeds of up to 80mph. It is for the Police to enforce speed limits and we could not hold the Council responsible for the dangerous or threatening behaviour of the motorists who use the road.
8. Mr X is unhappy the Council did not respond to his requests for several months but we will not investigate this point in isolation. It is peripheral to his concerns about the Council’s decision and has not itself caused him significant injustice.

Highway disrepair

9. Mr X complains the road is out of repair with over 20 large potholes outside his property. The Council as the local highway authority is responsible for maintaining the road but its duty is not absolute. Whether the Council has done enough to comply with its obligations under the Highways Act 1980 is a legal issue which is more appropriate for consideration by the courts. If Mr X wishes to pursue this matter it would be reasonable for him to serve notice on the Council and apply to the court for an order under Section 56 of the Act requiring it to carry out repairs.

Surface water drainage

10. Mr X says water from the road floods his garden causing damage to his trees. The Council says there is a historic easement allowing it to drain water onto his land and that as the landowner it is his responsibility how the water is directed across it. If Mr X believes water is draining onto his land as a result of any damage to drains running underneath the road, the alternative remedy set out at Paragraph 8 would apply. If he disputes the Council’s response and wishes to challenge its rights to drain water onto his land he may wish to seek legal advice. This is not an issue the Ombudsman can resolve.

Property damage

11. Mr X says that as a result of potholes in the road and the water draining onto his land, he has suffered damage to his property. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider complaints about administrative fault. We cannot establish liability in complaints involving damage to property. Claims for damage to property are a matter for the Council’s insurers and, ultimately, the courts.

Other matters

12. Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice Mr X claims is not the result of any fault by the Council and because matters relating to highway disrepair and damage are more appropriate for consideration by the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman