National Highways

3. Mr O complains about the service he received from National Highways (NH). He complains that:

• NH did not properly notify locals in advance that work that would be taking place, and which would affect property. They were also not notified of ongoing changes and updates to the plans. The plans that were provided do not reflect the work that was carried out, which was larger and more damaging than they’d been told it would be. Proper tests were not carried out to ensure what needed to be done, including with regard to mines and wells in the area.

• NH has refused to take responsibility for damage to his property • New road signs are labelled incorrectly

4. Mr O explained that vibrations from the construction work has caused damage to his property including structural damage to walls and door/window frames, as well as water damage to the garden. Fruit trees in his garden went to rot and had to be chopped down. Mr O has been left needing to replace his windows and carry out other repairs.

5. There was also lengthy noise disruption, including at nights, and for over a year the area was covered with a red dust that the constructors denied was coming from the work. The vibrations regularly caused things to fall from cupboards and other issues inside the property. People crossing the bridge can now see into the property and they are also affected by glare from the new lights. The new works are also quite an eyesore.

6. Mr O explained that the lengthy disruption has been traumatic for him and his family.

7. By bringing the complaint to PHSO, Mr O is seeking to be compensated for the damage to his property. He also wants an investigation to be carried out into the contract that was awarded and the organisation’s failure to carry out proper checks.

8. In 2022, National Highways (NH) began a road widening scheme near Mr O’s house.

9. According to Mr O, he was not informed that the work would be taking place, and he only found out via his daughter, who lives locally and had received a letter of notification. Mr O says that the work caused damage to his home and other neighbouring properties. He complained to NH about this. In response, NH commissioned a survey of Mr O’s property.

10. The surveyor found evidence of damage to Mr O’s property. However, as the report did not definitively link the damage to the work being carried out, NH refused to provide compensation.

11. NH said it would reconsider the matter if provided with clear evidence of a causal link between the work and the damage but says that as yet this has not happened.

Notification of Works and Ongoing Changes to plans

14. Mr O complains that National Highways did not properly notify him in advance that work which would affect his property would be taking place. He says that he was also not notified of ongoing changes and updates to the plans, and that the plans do not reflect much of the work that was carried out.

15. He explained that before the works began, his daughter (who lives nearby) and people on her estate received letters announcing a public meeting about upcoming works. Mr O didn’t receive anything and told us that neither did anyone else on his estate – around 50 houses.

16. As a result, he contacted National Highways to ask about the works and the details of the meeting. He explained that his estate is closer to the site of the works than his daughter’s property, so couldn’t understand why they had not been notified.

17. Mr O says he contacted all his neighbours and informed them of the meeting. At the meeting, he found out that the meeting that the motorway was to be moved closer to his property. He says that posters in the area advertised the meeting as being held in the afternoon, but on the day, he found out it was to take place in the morning. He tried to delay the meeting as people hadn’t been notified, but it went ahead without many locals being able to be present.

18. He explained that one cause of the discrepancy between the plans and the work was that although traffic surveys were carried out on the road, they were carried out while other works were being carried out further up the same road, which would affect the survey. He says this was not taken into account.

19. Mr O advised us that he was informed a large fence would be erected at the end of his garden, and the work compound for the construction would be placed nearby. A new motorway bridge would also be erected near his property.

20. He says that proper tests were not carried out to ensure what needed to be done, including with regard to mines and wells in the area.

21. As the work progressed, he noticed that the bridge being built was not a straight bridge as they had been told, but a large cantilever bridge and was much larger than planned. He says the bridge also now allows for motorbikes to use it, which has been dangerous for people in the area.

22. He asked when the plans changed, and says he was told a letter was sent, but he did not receive one.

23. He explained that the bridge has no ramps, and so wheelchairs cannot use it.

24. Following the resident meeting on 4 September 2024, Mr O raised some questions with NH, and it responded by email on 9 September 2024.

25. Mr O had complained about the way the footbridge had been built, and said the design had changed, bringing it closer to his property. NH replied that the bridge has been reduced in size from the original design (as reported in the DCO requirement 12 explanation document sent out on 30 May 2024). NH explained this details the exact changes made and the reasons why they were changed.

26. Mr O had complained that the construction is not on Highways land, as claimed, and told NH it appears to go past the existing path. He wanted to know if NH had bought the land. NH advised bridge is on NH land and again referred to the DCO explanation document. It explained that it did purchase some additional land and provided Mr O with a link to the relevant information about this. It advised that the design of the bridge was changed in August 2021.

27. Mr O was engaged in lengthy discussions with NH about its responsibilities and the concerns he had raised. Ultimately, it could not provide a response that Mr O was satisfied with, and so he asked for the case to be escalated to the Independent Complaints Assessor (ICA).

28. The ICA investigated and provide its report on 23 January 2025.

29. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there is an organisation that is better placed to deal with the concerns. Some complaints can be looked at by us, and also by other organisations. We have considered whether another organisation is better suited to giving an answer to the complaint and whether it can provide the outcome, and we have found that is the case.

30. We must be clear here what our role involves and what we can investigate. Many of the issues raised by Mr O, such as those involving the planning of the works and the consultation process is the responsibility of the Planning Inspectorate (PI). While we can investigate complaints about NH, we can only look at issues for which it is responsible, and from the evidence reviewed, it appears much of Mr O’s complaint should have been raised with the PI. We can also see from the ICA’s report that it gave a similar explanation.

31. Regarding Mr O’s complaint that he was not notified in advance that the work would be taking place, it is our understanding that this would be the responsibility of the Planning Inspectorate, not National Highways.

32. The Planning Inspectorate (PI) deals with planning appeals, national infrastructure planning applications, examinations of local plans and other planning-related and specialist casework in England.

33.

34. We have discussed this with NH, who confirmed this would be the case.

35. It would also be the responsibility of the PI to him about any ongoing changes to the plans.

36. With this in mind, we cannot consider this point any further and would direct Mr O to make any complaints about these issues to the Planning Inspectorate.

Failure to Accept Responsibility

37. Mr O complains that National Highways has refused to take responsibility for damage caused to his property. He maintains that this was caused by the ongoing works.

38. He explained that drainage for the work failed, and water runoff from the work gathered on his property (and surrounding properties).

39. He later began to have problems with his patio doors and upstairs windows, which could not be closed properly because of structural dagame caused by the vibrations from the works.

40.

41. Mr O advised that he spoke with an area surveyor from Costain (the construction company) and someone from NH. He says he was told that compensation claims for damages cannot be made until a year after the work has been carried out.

42. In its complaint response of 6 August 2024, NH noted that Mr O had (on 12 July 2024) asked for a copy of the report, as he says it came to a different conclusion that the surveyor.

43. NH advised that the survey carried out on Mr O’s property was passed onto them and had been reviewed.

44. NH says there is no conclusive evidence that the works have caused damage to his property. NH suggested that if he believed the damage was caused by the works, he could submit a claim through his house insurance. NH advised its project team would be happy to send the insurance company a copy of the survey should he decide to pursue this.

45. NH confirmed that any claim for damage to his property will only be dealt with through the insurance company.

46. In the ICA report (dated 23 January 2025), it noted his claim that vibrations from NH’s work damaged his property, and that NH has not accepted responsibility at this stage (though it had commissioned an independent surveyor report). He had also referred to damage (and potential further damage) regarding the drainage onto his property.

47. The ICA provided information about applications for compensation, and what can be claimed. It quoted NH guidance ‘Your property and Part I compensation’. The guidance states:

“What you can claim for. You can only make a Part I claim because of: • Noise • Vibration • Smell • Fumes • Smoke • artificial lighting • solid or liquid discharge on to your property

What you can't claim for You can’t make a Part I claim for: • other problems caused by a road, for example, losing your view, natural light or privacy (sometimes called ‘blight’) • problems coming from another part of the road - your claim must be for the part of the road that’s new or altered • a road that’s only been resurfaced”

48. National Highways advises that a Part 1 claim can usually be made after a road has been open to traffic for a year, and no later than six years from the first claim day. Appeals may be referred to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). In the case of the scheme, the window for Part 1 applications to be considered opens in December this year.”

49. The ICA notes that NH offered some residents, including Mr O, an independent building survey to consider the complaints that the work has resulted in property damage.

50. The site inspection for the survey took place on 29 May 2024. NH has declined to disclose the report to Mr O, which he believes is because it supports his complaint.

51. Mr O had raised this with the ICA, who found that he was correct in saying NH is limiting access to the document because it does not like the contents. The ICA advised that NH accepting when speaking to them that there was a lack of clarity in the report as to the extent which the repairs carried out to Mr O’s property were caused by the works.

52. NH confirmed to the ICA that it asked the surveyor to remove references to deficits that they could not demonstrate are linked to the construction work. The ICA explained that NH’s problem with the survey report is that the necessary causal link is not established.

53. However, NH assured the ICA that it is prepared to consider accepting responsibility for property damage if it is robustly evidenced.

54. The ICA did display some sympathy with NH’s position as the document resembles the survey a purchaser might commission if valuing a property. They noted that they came to this conclusion because the report includes, for example, periodic inspection fees for the electrics, and does not appear to show evidence that the construction work was responsible for the claimed property damage.

55. The ICA notes the survey report reproduces Mr O’s account of the damage, and the surveyor’s observations of it, but that the report does not clearly endorse or refute either party’s version of events.

56. The ICA notes it is unusual that NH has declined to provide Mr O with a copy of the survey while at the same time agreeing to provide it to his insurer (which Mr O says he cannot do as he was not insured). NH has pointed out that while he did not have an insurer at the time construction began, he does now, and it would be happy to provide them with the report. The ICA suggests Mr O put this to his insurer and then goes back to NH.

57. The ICA asked NH to disclose the survey report to Mr O (along with any reservations the company might have about it), which it then did.

58. Despite the reservations noted, the ICA did not uphold Mr O’s complaint as it agreed the survey did not determine that the damage was caused by the construction work.

59. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.

60. Ultimately, with cases like this the issue is whether or not it can be shown that any damage was caused by the works. Although NH does have a compensation scheme for such damage, it will only make payments if presented with evidence of a link between the two. In this case, it appears the survey report did not make this link.

61. While the surveyor may have noted that there was damage to the property, they do not state that the construction works were the cause.

62. I sympathise greatly with Mr O’s position that the construction works were responsible for the damage to his property, but there simply does not appear to be any evidence to conclusively say this was the cause. Without such evidence, we cannot find that NH was wrong to not accept responsibility and provide compensation.

Road Signs

63. Mr O is unhappy that new road signs placed on the bridge are wrong and label the turnoffs incorrectly.

64. We could not see anything in the complaint responses regarding this point, so we contacted NH to ask if this has been raised as a formal complaint, and if so, what its position on the matter is.

65. NH confirmed that Mr O did contact them regarding this issue but says it has not been raised as a formal complaint. It did however provide some information on the matter. NH wrote:

66. “All traffic signs, including those installed on gantries, are in accordance with the relevant design standards to ensure road user safety and consistency on the strategic road network. The traffic signs design is in accordance with the Traffic Signs Manual and Local Transport Note 1/94 (LT1/94) which states the following in Clause 4.1.2:

67. The categories of place names and the order they should appear, from top to bottom, or from left to right, on directional informatory signs are as follows:

• Regional destinations (e.g. The NORTH) • Motorway designations (route number patches on all-purpose road signs) • Place name destinations, generally in the order of furthest first. Where destinations with different bracketed route numbers are associated with the same direction they should be listed in the order in which each junction ahead is reached.

68. On the 1/3 mile northbound junction 66 gantry, the destination names have been placed in order of Hexham, Newcastle and the Gateshead to comply with item (C) above.”

69. As no formal complaint has been made about this point, we cannot consider if further. We would advise Mr O that if he wishes to pursue this matter, he should first raise it as a formal complaint with NH and await its response. Only once this has happened can PHSO. consider it.

1. We have carefully considered Mr O’s complaint about National Highways. We were very sorry to read of the events that led to Mr O contacting us and recognise that the disruption to his live caused by the ongoing works has been very distressing.

2. For the complaint that National Highways failed to notify residents about the commencement of the works, and of ongoing changes, we found that National Highways would not be responsible for these actions, and the complaint should sit with the Planning Inspectorate. For the complaint that National Highways has failed to take responsibility for damage it has caused, we have seen no indication that anything went wrong. For the complaint about road signs, we found that this complaint has not yet been properly made and so would not be ready for PHSO to investigate.