Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems the complainant experienced during a road closure. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the complainant would need to make a legal claim for the alleged damage to her wall.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains of problems while her road was closed for about two weeks for road works. She says she was denied access, missed deliveries and a family member had to carry shopping for half a mile. Mrs X says a workman sat on her wall and broke a tile. Mrs X wants compensation and for the Council to pay for the broken wall.

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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence and videos Mrs X sent to the Council. I also considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Council sent a letter telling Mrs X her road would be closed for about two weeks. The letter said there would be restricted access but the Council would try to minimise disruption.
5. Mrs X complained she was not told there would sometimes be no access. She said she missed important deliveries, and a family member had to park some way away and carry shopping. Mrs X sent a video of a workman sitting on her wall and said he broke a wall tile.
6. In response, the contractor visited and found no evidence of damage. The Council agreed a worker sat on the wall for a short time but said there was no evidence he caused any damage. The Council invited Mrs X make a legal claim for damage.
7. The Council said it gave advance notice of the closure and access was maintained apart from some periods when it was not possible for health and safety reasons. It said there were marshals at both ends of the road who helped facilitate access. The Council said a worker carried the relative’s shopping for her. The Council also said that some delivery firms choose not to deliver if they are aware of a road closure, and it is the responsibility of delivery firms to keep customers informed. The Council apologised for the inconvenience and the contractor sent flowers.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council gave advance notice and while the letter did not specifically say there would be some periods of no access, the context suggested that may be the case. A road closure will inevitably cause some disruption and inconvenience; this is not due to fault but is an unavoidable consequence of the work. I appreciate Mrs X had some problems with deliveries but, again, this is not an indication of fault. Mrs X says she would have made different arrangements if she had known there would be periods of no access; but, it is unlikely the Council would have known in advance when these periods would be, as they were dependent on the progress of the work.
9. The Council says a workman helped the relative with her shopping; Mrs X denies this. It is unlikely we could find out what happened and it does not require an investigation.
10. I have looked at the video and it shows a worker sitting on the wall for a short time. The video does not show a broken tile or anything to indicate something occurred while he was sitting. We could not find out what caused the broken tile or when. As I have not seen any evidence the Council is responsible for the broken tile, we could not ask the Council to pay for the repair. We cannot determine claims for damage; as invited by the Council, Mrs X could make a legal claim against the Council/contractor and it would be for the courts to decide if the Council/contractor is liable.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because the claim regarding the broken tile is a matter for the courts.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman