The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in carrying out repairs to a road following a landslip. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and we could not achieve the outcomes the complainant is seeking.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council should start repairs to a collapsed road immediately and re-open it as soon as possible.
Mr X explains he must follow a 6-mile diversion to get to the town centre, instead of just a 1-mile trip, and deliveries to his house are being missed as the drivers cannot reach his house easily.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We can investigate 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We can consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. But if there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Mr X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
I appreciate Mr X is very frustrated and inconvenienced by the current situation with the closed road.
But the Ombudsman is not an appeal body, and our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better/differently, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
The Council has explained the road collapsed due to a failed wall which is privately owned. It has therefore served a notice on the owner, using its powers under section 167 of the Highways Act, requiring them to complete the repair work within 3 months. If no action is taken, the Council will undertake the works in default, and recharge the costs to the owners. Whilst Mr X might be unhappy about this decision, I see no evidence of fault in the way it was made by the Council, so the Ombudsman will not start an investigation.
And even if we were to pursue the matter further, we could not achieve the outcomes Mr X is seeking. Firstly, we have no power to direct the Council to commence the works, nor could we stipulate how long they should take. So, our involvement is unlikely to lead to the repairs being completed any sooner Secondly, in law there is no link between the charge for/payment of council tax and the provision of services by the Council. Households must pay this tax even if services are disrupted or if services are not used. We therefore cannot achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking, as we would not recommend a council tax refund for the loss of use of the road.
As our involvement is unlikely to result in a better outcome for Mr X, we will not investigate the complaint for this reason also.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and we could not achieve the outcomes he is seeking.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman