The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Dr C’s complaint about poor quality pavement re-surfacing works. This is because Dr C has not suffered a significant injustice which would justify an investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, who I will refer to as Dr C, complains about the Council’s handling of pavement re-surfacing works on the road where he lives. Dr C says the work was poorly done with tar left on most utility covers. Dr C says in response to his complaint the Council arranged for the contractor to do the work again. But, the contractor did not redo the whole road, and many utility covers still have tar on them. Dr C would like the Council to get the contractor to finish the job properly.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide: 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Dr C.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
I recognise Dr C is not satisfied with the quality of the re-surfacing work undertaken by the Council’s contractor. But, I find the alleged fault by the Council has not caused Dr C a significant injustice which would justify public money being spent on an investigation by the Ombudsman.
Final decision
We will not investigate Dr C’s complaint because he has not suffered a significant injustice as a result of the alleged fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman