The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because the courts and insurers are better placed to deal with any damage to Dr Y’s vehicle and there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s management of highway maintenance to justify investigation.
The complaint
Dr Y complained the Council has failed to properly manage the maintenance the road surface in his area, which he is concerned has left a potential safety risk for drivers. He feels there are numerous potholes in the area, causing damage to his vehicle and the existing reporting tool the Council uses makes it difficult to make a complaint about the poor highway maintenance.
Dr Y says his car is damaged on a daily basis and he feels he risks injury when out driving.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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)) 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) It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information Dr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
As part of the Council’s complaint response, it explained to Dr Y that it has to prioritise its work to ensure the areas in greatest need of maintenance or repair are dealt with, depending on their level of severity. It has provided Dr Y with a link to its policy to explain more fully how it prioritises highway issues which is also available publicly on its website and referred him to an online tool it uses to receive reports about specific highway issues. The Council has also agreed to continue to monitor some of the roads Dr Y has referred to as part of his complaint for safety defects.
As the Council has a policy it is using to prioritise its work based on relevant criteria such as severity of the issue raised and is using that policy to consider reports of maintenance issues, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating this complaint. While Dr Y may disagree with the outcome of the policy, this does not mean that there is fault and we will not investigate.
Where Dr Y says he has had damage caused to his car which considers the Council to be responsible for, it is more appropriate for the courts and insurers to consider such issues. This is because we are not able to decide liability or award damages. We will not investigate this complaint.
Dr Y is also unhappy with the way the Council ask the public to report problems on the road, as he feels this meant it was difficult for him to raise a complaint. The Council uses a reporting tool, as it categorises such issues as a request for service, rather than a complaint. This is for the Council to decide how it sets out its policies for such requests and for complaints and as it has relevant policies for such issues, we would be unlikely to find fault in its decision to do this.
However, Dr Y has been able to raise a complaint with the Council about his concerns and this has been responded to. While he may be unhappy with the way the Council considered his concerns, as we are not investigating the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public funds to consider how the Council dealt with Dr Y’s complaint and so we will not investigate.
Final decision
We will not investigate Dr Y’s complaint because the courts and insurers are better placed to deal with any damage to Dr Y’s vehicle and there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s management of highway maintenance to justify investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman