The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
The complaint
Mr Y complained the Council failed to repair a pavement which had subsided following water mains works, leaving a small ridge between the pavement and the brick paving of Mr Y’s driveway. Mr Y is also unhappy with the Council’s investigation of his complaint.
Mr Y has spent time writing to the Council, causing him frustration and is worried that someone will trip and fall onto his driveway.
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 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) It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Following works on water pipes, Mr Y contacted the Council in March 2022 about a dip in the pavement outside his home, asking for it to be repaired. The Council carried out a small patch repair in May to the pavement, but Mr Y contacted it and said that the small repair had not fixed the change in level between his driveway and the pavement at one point. He therefore asked the Council to return to complete the repair fully, suggesting that an administrative error had led to an incomplete repair. Mr Y says this action was agreed by telephone.
Following a complaint from Mr Y, the Council gave its final response in September. It said that following the patch repair the Council, as the Highways Authority, felt there were no longer any safety defects and so would not do any further repairs to the pavement. It said it had considered this through an inspection of the pavement and that the level between the pavement and Mr Y’s driveway was within its degree of tolerance. It said the previous work had been completed as agreed, to repair the small safety defect, but nothing further so there had been no error in the work done. Mr Y then approached us.
Analysis We cannot question whether a council’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.
In this case, the Council has, when doing the small repair, considered the risk to the public on the change in height between the pavement and Mr Y’s driveway. It has decided as the Highways Authority that it does not pose a sufficient risk to warrant further work, basing this decision on its experience and professional expertise.
As the Council has considered relevant factors in its decision-making process, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint.
As we will not investigate the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council considered to Mr Y’s complaint.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman