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.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs C, complains the Hundred of Wisbech Internal Drainage Board (‘the Authority’) has 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 in 2013. The works included the filling and piping of a section of watercourse near her property.
2. Mrs C says because of the Authority’s fault, her property suffers from raised levels of groundwater and standing water during the period 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.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs C, complains the Authority has failed to investigate properly and take appropriate action in response to her reports from April 2018 of drainage problems after it consented to works affecting a private watercourse. The works included the filling and piping of a section of watercourse near her property.
4. Mrs C says because of the Authority’s fault, her property suffers from raised levels of groundwater and standing water during the period 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.
5. The final section of this statement contains my reasons for not investigating the rest of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
7. We cannot question whether an authority’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
8. If we are satisfied with an authority’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
9. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I read the papers provided by Mrs C and discussed the complaint with her. I have considered some information from the Authority and provided a copy of this to Mrs C. I have explained my draft decision to Mrs C and the Authority and considered the comments received.

Back to top

What I found

11. Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) are independent bodies with the power to carry out land drainage or flood protection works in areas of special drainage need. Their powers are ‘permissive’, not duties.
12. The Authority consented to works affecting a private watercourse under the Land Drainage Act 1991 and its Land Drainage Byelaws in September 2013. The works were the filling and piping of about 75 metres of the watercourse as shown on an attached plan. Mrs C’s property is on adjacent land. The consent was subject to conditions.
13. Condition 5(i) set out that the works should have no adverse effect on the proper flow of water or cause obstruction to the flow of water and if the Consulting Engineer determined there was such an adverse effect or obstruction the works would need to be removed.
14. Condition 10 set out the detailed specification for the construction of the culvert. This included pipes of 150mm in diameter laid to an invert level 450mm below the solid bed and any existing drainage affected by the new pipeline to be intercepted and connected into the pipeline with any necessary approvals.
15. The Authority does not accept that the issues raised by Mrs C about groundwater levels and standing water near her property are due to the consented works. The Authority points to the following factors:

• Mrs C’s property and surrounding area is low lying and known to be wet because of ground conditions;
• the drain Mrs C refers to in her complaint is a private drain and is the responsibility of the riparian owners and is situated some distance from the maintained drains of the Authority;
• Mrs C’s property benefitted from run off onto a green field before the construction of the property next door which this may have helped in the discharge of surface water;
• the neighbouring property now built is a large detached house with gardens and hard surfaces;
• the lane that Mrs C lives on is in poor condition and has several potholes near Mrs C’s property which fill up with water when it rains;
• responsibility for maintenance of the road lies with the landowners on each side of the road up to the halfway point in the road;
• it was discovered during the construction of the neighbouring property that a manhole had previously been buried which suggested it linked the watercourse with an adjacent road hole but the manhole and pipework were in such a condition that no drainage would have been possible at that time and before this for many years; and
• there were issues within the highway drainage system which were a matter for the County Council as Highway Authority.

16. Several issues with road gullies were identified in 2014. The Highway Authority did not complete repairs until December 2018. The Authority considers the works now completed by the Highways Authority have improved the situation with the surface water drainage near Mrs C’s property.
17. The Authority has provided details of its further site visits following the works completed by the Highway Authority in December 2018. These include visits in February and during heavy rainfall events on 12 June and 14 August 2019. The Authority has provided several photographs in support of its assessment. These include a photograph taken on 12 June 2019 showing no standing water in this location despite an extremely heavy rainfall event on the previous two days. The Authority has also provided the relevant rainfall records. Additional photographs show the road near Mrs C’s property to be dry apart from a couple of potholes directly outside of Mrs C’s property which had filled up with rain. The Authority’s visits included visits with representatives from the County Council which is the Lead Flood Authority for the area and it has also been in contact with the water company.
18. There is a note from the water company dated 27 February 2019 that says “I belive the surface water goes from a 9 inch pipe in the road to a 4 inch pipe which then goes to what was a ditch but is now a piped line”. The Authority considers the recorded information is what the water company was told by Mrs C. The Authority says highway drains are a standard size which is usually 100mm to 150mm. The applicant connected a 100mm pipe to the highway pipe. This is then discharged to a manhold and to the 150mm consented pipe.
19. The Authority further says that at the time the consent was issued, the drain subject to the consent could not carry water from the highway as there was no pipe connecting the highway drain to the culverted drain and the roadside manhole was found to be partly filled with concrete. This connection was subsequently installed and the Authority cannot comment on the adequacy of the size of this new connection although it has no objection as it appears to be helping to improve a problem that exists.
20. The Authority also highlights from the photographs above that drainage grates leading to the highway gullies are overgrown with grass and leaves which restricts water being able to enter the highway gullies. The responsibility for keeping these grates clear is a matter for the frontage owners and Highway Authority.
21. Mrs C refers in her complaint to the disintegration of brickwork. The Authority says this is a common problem with modern construction methods with facing bricks being used instead of engineering bricks and with a concrete path being built up to the brickwork. Ideally, it says there should be a space for gravel or another permeable surface to allow run off. The Authority suggests that when rain hits the concrete it splashes up on the brickwork and after time the bricks disintegrate. The Authority does not accept this damage can be attributed to the consent for the culverting of the drain.
22. The Authority also notes that the properties on Mrs C’s lane have been built at different times with no overall approach or consistency applied to drainage with most properties having soakaways for their drainage. These soakaways are the responsibility of individual property owners and will require maintenance as they fill with silt. Mrs C says she has built her soakaway upwards but the Authority highlights this would just encourage water stored to overflow.
23. The Authority has received one other report from a neighbouring property about damage to brickwork and a sink hole. The Authority has also visited this property and inspected both the brickwork and sinkhole. The Authority does not consider that its 2013 consent for works to the watercourse are the cause of the problems given the factors above and distance between the consented works and property.
24. The Authority says it has relied on the advice of its Consulting Engineer for the specification of the consented works including that a 150mm pipe was adeqaute to pipe 75 metres of a watercouse. The Authority’s Engineer considers the issue of water lying on the road opposite Mrs C’s property is due to a problem with the road gullies. The Authority continue to believe that the consented pipe section is of adequate size for the purposes it was required to deal with at the time of issuing.
25. The County Council has considered the possibility of a CCTV survey of the drainage in the area. The Authority takes the view that any CCTV survey should be funded by the County Council as lead Flood Authority as it does not accept the drainage problems being experienced are its responsibility.
26. The Authority does not consider the consented works in 2013 are the cause of the problems being reported by Mrs C and has provided cogent reasons for its view. I appreciate Mrs C does not share this assessment but this is not in itself evidence of fault. The Ombudsman cannot decide the cause of the issues being reported only whether the Authority has responded appropriately to those reports.
27. Based on the information provided, I am satisfied the Authority has responded properly to Mrs C’s reports. It has visited the site several times and liaised with other agencies to identify the potential cause of the problem and possible actions to improve the situation. I have seen no evidence of undue delay by the Authority or other fault. In these circumstances, there are no grounds for me to recommend the Authority provide a remedy to Mrs C.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I have completed my investigation as I have found no evidence of fault by the Authority in the way it has responded to Mrs C’s reports from April 2018.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

29. I have not investigated the original consent provided by the Board in 2013 or events before April 2018 for the reasons set out at paragraph 9. Mrs C was aware of the works and its potential impact on local drainage in 2013 but did not complain to the Ombudsman until April 2019. I have exercised the discretion available to me to investigate events from April 2018 as the matter can be considered ongoing.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman