Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway repairs because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has constructed the road he lives on so poorly that when buses and other large vehicles pass his property, he can feel vibrations. He says the Council has failed to investigate and stop his property from vibrating.
2. Mr Y says the constant vibrations is disturbing him and damaging his mental health and feels the patch repairs the Council has previously used have wasted public funds.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We 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. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr Y has complained to the Council about vibrations he says he can feel when large vehicles drive past his home. The Council inspected the road outside Mr Y’s property and found a defect in the road surface. It decided to carry out a repair to the defect, but Mr Y says he can still feel vibrations and therefore remained dissatisfied. He was also unhappy with the Council’s response that the vibrations may have been caused by something other than the road surface and maintenance.
8. 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.
9. The Council has considered the issue against relevant criteria, including the size of the defect, having made a site visit and has acted to repair the highway where this met its maintenance criteria. Consequently, its decision of where and how to act has been made properly and we would not find fault.
10. Further, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Council do not owe a duty to investigate noise or vibration from traffic. Its duty, as a highways authority, is to reasonably maintain the highways so it is free of danger to all uses who use the highway in the way normally expected of them. Consequently, the Council is not required to stop Mr Y’s property from vibrating due to traffic. It is only required to maintain the highway, which in this case it has done. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating so we will not investigate.
11. Mr Y has also said he was unhappy with the content of the Council’s response to his complaint. As we are not investigating the substantive issue in this complaint, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint, and we will not investigate this.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman