Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about how the Council undertakes highway repair works. This is because the alleged fault has not caused Mr B a significant and personal injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council is not undertaking highway maintenance work in the most efficient and cost-effective way. Mr B says repair work is often only partly done and not completed in a single visit. Mr B says the Council has not fully responded to his concerns about this.

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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr B.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council has explained to Mr B its approach to highway repair works. This is ultimately a matter for the Council to decide in its role as a local highways authority. It is highly unlikely an investigation would result in us asking the Council to take a different approach.
7. But, in any case, Mr B has not suffered a significant and personal injustice because of the issue he complains about. So, an investigation is not justified.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because the alleged fault has not caused Mr B a significant and personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman