Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Drainage


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Kent County Council (20 011 412)

    Statement Upheld Drainage 13-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to reduce the risk of surface flooding to his home after it was flooded in 2018. He said the lack of action contributed to his home flooding again in 2020. The flooding in 2020 was not due to fault by the Council. The Council was at fault when it failed to update Mr X with the result of drainage investigations in 2019 after agreeing to do so. It agreed to apologise to Mr X for the frustration and uncertainty that caused him.

  • Suffolk County Council (20 013 060)

    Statement Not upheld Drainage 09-Sep-2021

    Summary: The Council's offer to visit the site to respond to a complaint that a drainage pipe is blocked remedies the complainants concerns. This will establish if the Council is able to take action or if it is a private legal matter between two landowners.

  • Essex County Council (20 010 342)

    Statement Upheld Drainage 07-Sep-2021

    Summary: Mr D complained the Council has failed to take adequate action to resolve the flooding into his property from the highway. We find the Council delayed dealing with Mr D's report of a blocked gully, and it failed to keep him updated. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused to Mr D.

  • Hampshire County Council (20 010 139)

    Statement Not upheld Drainage 05-Aug-2021

    Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly claimed he was responsible for maintenance of a pipe that borders his land and has made a claim against him for repair costs. We have discontinued this investigation. The Ombudsman cannot decide who is responsible for the pipe and the claim for costs was issued to Mr X by another body and not the Council, and so the matters complained about are out of our jurisdiction.

  • Leicestershire County Council (19 011 721)

    Statement Upheld Drainage 30-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council dealt with concerns she raised about flooding around her property. She also raised concerns about additional risk from the development of sports pitches affecting a watercourse. We found there was fault that warrants a remedy.

  • Melton Borough Council (19 014 915)

    Statement Upheld Drainage 30-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council dealt with flooding issues and the impact of the development of sports pitches on a watercourse. We found there was fault that warrants a remedy.

  • City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (20 007 907)

    Statement Not upheld Drainage 23-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr D complains the Council unreasonably served him with a section 59 Building Act 1984 notice to remedy disrepair to the drains from his property. We have found no fault by the Council.

  • Suffolk County Council (20 011 901)

    Statement Not upheld Drainage 15-Jul-2021

    Summary: There was no fault in how the Council considered taking action over a flooded ditch. Although the cause of the flooding remains uncertain, it is for the Council to decide its criteria for prioritising such matters. We have therefore completed our investigation.

  • West Sussex County Council (20 007 590)

    Statement Not upheld Drainage 09-Jul-2021

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's decision that it is not responsible for maintenance of a damaged pipe which runs under the Council's land. We find no fault with the Council. This is because the Ombudsman cannot decide whether the watercourse is natural or artificial. Therefore, it is not possible to decide if the Council has riparian ownership of the watercourse.

  • Shropshire Council (20 007 865)

    Statement Not upheld Drainage 09-Jul-2021

    Summary: The complainant, Mrs X complained the Council failed to properly consider repairs to or restructuring the highway drainage network causing frequent flooding to her garden and putting Mrs X's home at risk of flooding. The Council told us it has the network in its programme of repair and replacement and gave it the priority attributable under its priority scheme. We found the Council acted without fault in deciding the priority for that programme.