The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of a vehicle crossing which Mr X says is of poor quality and a breach of the contract he signed with it. It is reasonable for Mr X to seek a remedy in the courts for his claims about financial loss.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the quality of work which the Council carried out when it constructed a vehicle crossing at his home in 2021. He says the tarmac surface became defective and had to be re-laid in 2022. However, he says the surface began to show defect again and the kerbstones began crumbling from damage. He has been asking the Council to replace the crossing since 2023 and says the Council is in breach of its contractual agreement.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s responses.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X signed an agreement with the Council for the provision of a vehicle crossing over the public highway outside his home in 2021. The work was carried out in December 20201 and due to severe weather the tarmac surface started to deteriorate in 2022. The Council accepted that the surface was defective and arrange for it to be re-laid. In the summer weather the tarmac became sticky and loose and this happened again in 2023.
Mr X complained to the Council stating that it was in breach of the contract in which he had paid over £2,000. He said the Council should refund him in full or replace the defective surface and two kerbstones which were crumbling. The Council inspected the site and told him it did not consider that the tarmac needed further replacement and that the kerbstones. It offered to refund him 25% for the original defective surface but would not carry out any additional work to the highway.
We cannot determine disputes about contracts for works carried out by public bodies. These are legal matters and can only be determined by the courts. The vehicle crossing is part of the public highway and the Council as highway authority can decide whether repair works are required under its Highways Act duties and powers.
Final decision
We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint about the Council’s provision of a vehicle crossing which Mr X says is of poor quality and a breach of the contract he signed with it. It is reasonable for Mr X to seek a remedy in the courts for his claims about financial loss.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman