The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about road repair. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
The complaint
Mrs Y complains the Council have poorly repaired a road surface outside her home and added a kerb edge which is too high, causing problems for her getting onto her property from the road and potentially leading to damage to a water pipe.
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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Mrs Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mrs Y contacted the Council asking it to repair a small ‘U’ shaped gutter at the side of the road. This had previously been installed by the Council to prevent rainwater from flooding the road, and the front of Mrs Y’s property.
The Council sent staff to repair the road at the end of January 2022. Mrs Y says they were ill prepared and had to borrow equipment from her to complete the work. She said she had also asked the Council if she could complete a line of kerbstones while the work was being completed. She says the Council’s contractor said it would do this for her at the same time as it repaired the road.
Mrs Y then complained to the Council shortly after the work had been completed. She complained about the standard of the work, including that the kerbstones had been set too high and at one point over a water pipe. She explained that this was leading to problems with driving over the kerb onto her property and said she was concerned about damage to the water pipe when others drove over the kerbstones.
The Council responded in April, saying that while the work was not of its usual standard, it was sufficient that it did not need to repair it. Mrs Y then approached us in April.
Analysis The Council has completed its work on the road in its role as the highways authority. It has a duty to repair highways when it becomes necessary so roads remain safe and to keep the highways clear of water. As the highways authority it decides, in its professional opinion, whether a road needs repair. In this case, the Council’s response says the work carried out is acceptable and does not need any additional work.
We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
While Mrs Y may not have seen the Council during its inspection, this is not a requirement for it before it makes a decision. The Council’s complaint response shows it made its decision, having inspected the road and considered that while the work did not meet the originally intended specification, it did meet the minimum standard required to be acceptable.
As it has considered relevant factors in making its decision, there is not enough evidence of fault in its decision-making process to justify investigating this complaint. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman