The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highways maintenance. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
The complaint
Dr Y complained the Council failed to repaint an H-Bar on the road outside her home following resurfacing works. She also complained the Council’s staff deliberately blocked access to her driveway during the works and were rude.
Dr Y says the worker’s rudeness caused her upset and it has been inconvenient for her brother, who has health problems, to have their driveway repeatedly blocked. She also feels it is unfair that she is being asked to pay £85 to repaint the H-Bar on the road, when its removal was outside of her control.
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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Dr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Dr Y lives with her brother, who has health problems. Until early summer, there was an H-Bar on the road outside her home, which deterred parking over her driveway. The Council then resurfaced the road, including over the H-Bar. Dr Y complained about this in June and the behaviour of the Council’s staff particularly when she asked them repeatedly to move their vehicles to allow access to and from her property.
The Council responded in June, confirming it had spoken to senior managers to reiterate its customer service standards and pass on Dr Y’s concerns. It said it had given warnings to residents of the works in leaflet drops to make them aware of any future inconvenience during the works.
In a later response the Council explained that the H-Bar, was not enforceable about less considerate drivers, and consequently the Council would not replace such protective markings following resurfacing. It said Dr Y could pay for an H-Bar to be painted on and gave details on who to contact for this service. The charge for this was quoted at £85. Dr Y came to us in June.
Analysis As explained in paragraph three, we may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Dr Y has complained about the behaviour of the Council’s staff during roadworks, including the staff being rude and unpleasant and deliberately parking in an obstructive way to Dr Y and her brother.
While Dr Y’s complaint is evidence, but the Council has not accepted fault. It has instead spoken to senior members of staff about Dr Y’s concerns. Without further evidence, which by the nature of this complaint is not available, it is unlikely we would find fault in this complaint. As there is not sufficient evidence of fault, we will not investigate this complaint.
While Dr Y disagrees with the Council’s decision not to repaint the H-Bar outside her property, where there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. As the Council has considered the issue, giving thought to the benefit of the H-Bar and its effectiveness as relevant factors, it is unlikely we would find fault in its decision. It has also given Dr Y details on how she might have the H-Bar repainted if she wishes, albeit at her own cost. Consequently, as there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigating, we will not investigate this complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Dr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman