The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has the wrong highway repair priorities, has failed to repair two major roads which places drivers at risk, and wastes public money. Mr X has a legal remedy at court which it is reasonable for him to use if he has evidence the Council has failed in its duties to keep the roads in a state of repair. We cannot lawfully investigate a complaint a council wastes money or achieve the outcome Mr X wants.
The complaint
Mr X complains the Council’s highways department has the wrong priorities, poor performance and questionable conduct. Mr X says the Council spent over £129,000 on an unnecessary repair scheme on a little used, unclassified, country lane. He says in contrast the Council failed to do urgent safety repairs on two major roads used by heavy goods vehicles. He says the roads are dangerous due to broken surfaces. Mr X says he uses the roads and the Council’s failings place him at risk and degrade the quality of his life. He says the Council has caused him injustice as a taxpayer and misuses public funds. Mr X wants the Council to repair the major roads. He wants the audit commission to investigate the Council’s spending and an external investigation to see if the Council should be referred to the secretary of state.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended) We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended) The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I have considered Mr X’s information and comments. The information held includes the Council’s complaint reply dated 21 October 2021.
My assessment
I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons: The complaint about the failure to repair the major roads is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because Mr X has a legal remedy at court (see paragraph 2 and 3 above). The Highways Act 1980, sections 56-58, allow a person to apply for a court order requiring the Council to repair a highway which is found to be ‘out of repair’. I consider it reasonable for Mr X to use this remedy because a court has the power to direct the Council to do highway works.
We cannot lawfully investigate a complaint that the Council is wasting taxpayers’ money because it affects ‘all or most’ of the people in the area (see paragraph 4).
We cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X wants. If Mr X wants an investigation by the audit commission, or other external body, he will need to contact it and seek his own advice on how to proceed.
Final decision
The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council has the wrong highway repair priorities, has failed to repair two major roads which places drivers at risk, and wastes public money. Mr X has a legal remedy at court which it is reasonable for him to use if he has evidence the Council has failed in its duty to keep the roads in a state of repair. We cannot lawfully investigate a complaint a council wastes money or achieve the outcome Mr X wants.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman