Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council failed to take responsibility for maintaining the road in front of her property. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council refused to repair potholes outside her property, wrongly identifying the area as her private drive, and failing to accept a legally binding adoption agreement or other documents supporting her case.
2. Mrs X stated the highway is in need of repair and is concerned members of the public may be at risk of injury. Mrs X explained she ensured she wouldn’t be liable for repairs when purchasing the property. Had she known about the dispute, she would have reconsidered the purchase or negotiated a lower price.
3. Mrs X wants the Council to take responsibility for the land and repair the potholes.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mrs X said the land outside the front of her property is not a private drive. She said the developer, who built her house had an Adoption Land and Legal Agreement identifying the land as adopted. She states this makes the land a highway maintainable by the public, meaning the Council is responsible for repairing potholes in this area.
9. The Council said it does not recognise the agreement as a legally binding deed and does not consider the land in front of her property as formally adopted.
10. It said the documents Mrs X provided demonstrate that there was an intention to adopt the highway within the estate, however there was no plan indicating that the access drive to Mrs X’s property was to be included. The Council says it required a coloured plan signed and sealed by the developer and the Council at the time, clearly showing the access drive to these properties is to be adopted.
11. In its complaint response the Council stated it was not required to prove the land was not adopted but Mrs X needed to prove it was, which she had not done. The Council based its decision on her documentation, its own records, and its specialist knowledge and experience of highway adoption processes. The Council further specified the document Mrs X needed to provide for the Council to reconsider its decision. Therefore we will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman