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

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complained about the way the Council had completed kerb reconstruction works on her road. used tarmac instead of concrete paving on a vehicle crossing and reinstalled kerb stones which causes an obstruction to a property’s driveway but also allows kerbs to be used for parking, which then block the driveway further.
2. Mrs Y says her property is now darker as a result of the colour change to tarmac, which she also finds unpleasant to look at, she struggles with other drivers blocking her driveway and her property has been damaged where the Council has used tarmac at the end of her driveway.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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, or there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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

5. I considered information Mrs Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs Y complained the Council used tarmac instead of concrete paving on a vehicle crossing and reinstalled kerb stones which causes an obstruction to her driveway but also allows kerbs to be used for parking, which then blocks the driveway further.
7. 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.
8. In this instance, the Council considered what materials needed to be used to best maintain the pavement. It decided due to the tree roots that this ought to be tarmac and not concrete slabs. While Mrs Y may be unhappy with this, as the Council has a clear rationale for the use of the tarmac, we would not find fault in its decision. We will not investigate.
9. Mrs Y has also complained about parking in front of her property which she says is a result of the raised kerb outside her property and is causing her to struggle in leaving her driveway as cars are parked outside it. The Council has told Mrs Y that she is able in such situations to report the issue to the Council’s parking enforcement team and has provided suitable telephone contact details for this. She can also contact the police about the matter.
10. As the Council has considered its powers and has told Mrs Y what she can do if the issue recurs, it is unlikely we would find fault in its response. This is especially where the kerb, while it has been repaired and maintained has not altered.
11. The legislation from which the Ombudsman takes their power also places some restrictions on what we may investigate. One of these concerns negligence claims about damage to property or personal injury. We cannot determine liability claims for negligence. These are legal claims which may only be determined by insurers or the courts.
12. Mrs Y has also said that her property has been damaged by the Council’s work as part of her driveway has been tarmacked over. We are not able to decide liability or award damages. Consequently, any claim for damages, such as costs for repairs to her driveway, which Mrs Y considers the Council to be responsible for, are matters more appropriately dealt with by the courts. It is therefore reasonable for Mrs Y to pursue a claim through the Council’s insurance. We will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs 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