The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of public highways. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to prioritise his area for footway repairs which has led to it being a risk to pedestrians in his view. He disagrees with the criteria used for deciding intervention for work and the frequency of inspections of the highway system.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X says the pavements in his street and surrounding area are in poor condition and some residents have had accidents because of this. He presented the Council with a petition of names asking for the area to be prioritised for footway repairs.
The Council told him that it has a system of planned maintenance based on an annual inspection of the highway system by an independent specialist surveying contractor. When defects are identified the repairs are prioritised according to the severity of disrepair and the usage of the route. In addition, the Council carries out urgent repairs too reported footway defects which fall within a 25mm intervention level.
Mr X complained that the period for inspections is too long and that the 25mm intervention depth is too stringent.
Councils as highway authorities have a duty to maintain the public highway under s.41 of the Highways Act 1980. There is no statutory inspection interval in the legislation and no specified defect intervention criteria. The Government has issued guidance through the Department for Transport which advises highway authorities how they should create a maintenance system using risk-based criteria. The Council told Mr X that its policy is in keeping with the guidance and the requirement under the Highways Act.
When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. Instead, we focus on the process by which the decision was made, and where we find fault in that process, we then determine whether or not it has caused the complainant a significant injustice.
The Council’s policy is similar to that used by other highway authorities and it has used its powers to draw up the maintenance policy. We would expect Mr X’s area to be considered in the same way as any other in terms of where it is placed on the schedule for highway maintenance works and there is no evidence to suggest this is not the case.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of public highways. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman