Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the condition of a pavement. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s response to the complaint.

The complaint

1. In short, Mr X complains about the condition of paving that he says nearly caused him to injure himself. Mr X says he would like the Council to repair the ‘uneven, cracked, sticking out’ paving stones urgently.

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 effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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 even if the complainant disagrees. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

Final decision

5. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault. The Council says the paving is not dangerous according to the guideline ‘matrix’ it uses to judge paving needing repairs. As this decision was taken after several inspections, and consideration of the Council’s repair matrix, we are unlikely to find fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman