The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way in which the Council carried out repairs to the road where he lives. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about repairs the Council carried out to the road where he lives. Mr X says the Council’s repairs covered or destroyed a stone border around the edge of the road which is a unique feature and part of the charm of the area. Mr X says the repairs will impact the desirability of the area and property values.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) We do not start 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 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 complained to the Council about repairs it carried out in tarmac on the road where he lives. Mr X said the repairs destroyed part of a unique feature of the road which is a three stone border around the edge of the road. He also complained the repairs affect the desirability of the area and property values.
The Council did not uphold the complaint. It explained it has limited budgets and will carry out repairs in the most economical way. This may mean the material used in a repair does not match the material in the surrounding area. It said the primary consideration in carrying out a repair is to ensure the highway is safe, not the aesthetic appearance of the repair or related considerations.
Whilst I acknowledge Mr X is unhappy with how the Council carried out the repair and disagrees with the materials used there is no sign of fault by the Council here. How to carry out the repair and what materials to use is a matter for the Council to consider and decide. It has explained to Mr X why it decided to use tarmac. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a councils ‘decisions where there is no sign of fault in how they were reached. As there is no sign of fault by the Council there is nothing further for us to consider and we could not add to the response already provided via the Council’s previous investigation.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no sign of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman