Recent statements in this category are shown below:
Statement Not upheld Drainage 31-Mar-2020
Summary: Mr B complains that the Council has failed to use its powers under the Land Drainage Act 1991 to reinstate an ordinary watercourse resulting in his property being at risk of flooding. The Ombudsman finds no grounds to criticise the Council's decision that use of its powers was not warranted in this case.
Statement Upheld Drainage 17-Mar-2020
Summary: the complainant says the Council agreed to complete drainage works outside her home in 2016 but did not do so until 2020. When the complainant followed up the lack of drainage the Council told her it had already completed the work when it had not. The Council accepts it mistakenly confirmed it had completed the work. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault and recommends a remedy.
Statement Not upheld Drainage 09-Jan-2020
Summary: Mr B complained that the Environment Agency had not rectified problems caused by faulty flood defences and surface water drainage installed many years ago. We cannot find fault with the Agency's actions.
Statement Upheld Drainage 12-Dec-2019
Summary: Mr C says the Council was at fault for its failure over 15 years to make the owner of a carpark install a drainage system. This, he says, allowed water to damage his property. The Council was at fault for using incorrect legislation to try to solve the problem. This raised Mr C's expectations, cost him time and trouble and caused him distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and to pay him a sum in recognition of the injustice caused.
Statement Not upheld Drainage 03-Dec-2019
Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed in carrying out remedial works to pipes near to his property. He said this had caused damage to his property in the past and it was causing him and his family distress. There was no fault in the Council's actions.
Statement Not upheld Drainage 30-Sep-2019
Summary: Mrs C complains the Hundred of Wisbech Internal Drainage Board failed to investigate properly and take appropriate action in response to her reports of drainage problems after it consented to works affecting a private watercourse. Mrs C says her property suffers from raised levels of groundwater and standing water from November to March and she had to take action to deal with the excess water to prevent damage to her property costing approximately £700. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Drainage Board.
Statement Upheld Drainage 27-Sep-2019
Summary: Mr X complained the Council, as the regulatory authority, failed to provide him with advice and assistance when his property was being damaged by a nearby landowner who was pumping water into a stream at high pressure. The Council did not respond immediately to Mr X but was not required to. It did respond to Mr X's concerns and was not at fault. It was at fault when it failed to respond to Mr X's later correspondence and to address the queries he rose. This caused Mr X some frustration and the Council has agreed to apologise to him for this. It has also agreed to review its procedures to prevent this happening in future.
Statement Not upheld Drainage 26-Sep-2019
Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council has handled a drainage problem on Mrs A's land. He says the Council incorrectly installed a drainage pipe and agreed to carry out works to the driveway which it is now refusing to do. The Ombudsman finds no fault on the Council's part.
Statement Upheld Drainage 22-Aug-2019
Summary: Mr D complains the Council has failed to help him resolve flooding on his private property. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault in this matter. The Council did delay responding to Mr D's complaint but there is no outstanding injustice to Mr D. As such, the Ombudsman has upheld the complaint (because of the delay) and completed the investigation because there is no unremedied injustice.
Statement Not upheld Drainage 05-Aug-2019
Summary: Mr D complains about the way the Council has handled drainage problems in his property and road. The Ombudsman has discontinued our investigation. This is because further investigation could not achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr D and it would be reasonable for him to pursue a legal claim against the Council.