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

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to repair a sunken drain cover, which is causing vibrations and noise. Mr Y says this is impacting the quality of his family’s lives, regularly wakes him and leaves him unable to concentrate. Mr Y says he feels let down by the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. After Mr Y reported an issue with the highway outside his home, the Council inspected the highway in November 2024. The Council found a defect in the way the drain cover was sitting in the frame, but in accordance with its maintenance policy, found this was a low priority for works. It explained this to Mr Y and referred Mr Y to its policy on risk assessment and prioritising for maintenance for more information.
6. 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.
7. In this case, the Council has considered the issue before making a decision, using its expertise and experience to judge risk and safety as required in its policy. As the decision-making process was completed properly, we would not find fault in the Council’s decision not to take further action at this time.
8. 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. It is only required to monitor and carry out repairs where necessary to the highway, which in this case it has properly considered. Therefore, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating so we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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