Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to prevent water run-off from the highway affecting his property and its septic tank sewage system. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s failure to deal with water run-off from the highway onto his property. He says it has damaged the boundary hedge and overfills his drainage and septic tank systems causing them to back up. He wants the problem to be resolved and compensation for the cost he has incurred.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mr X submitted with his complaint and Mr X has commented on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr X says his property has suffered with water run-off from the highway for the past 2 to 3 years. He says water runs from an underground source onto the highway and then into his property causing the drainage system to overflow. Flooding on the surface has also caused spray to affect his boundary hedge.
5. Mr X complained to the Council and its contractor has been working for some time to identify the source of the excess water. It has informed him that the drainage from the highway appears to be connected at one point with his drainage system. It says due to the complexity of the drainage beyond the highway boundary and limited resources it has not been able to resolve the problem so far.
6. Councils as highway authorities have a duty to assert and protect the rights of highway users. This includes maintaining the highway surface water drainage to ensure it does not obstruct pedestrians and road users. Highway authorities have no duty to deal with highway run-off onto adjacent property. In this case the Council is trying to resolve the problem of water running onto the carriageway from an unknown underground source. It has sought to resolve the problem, but this may not prevent water in future from running into Mr X’s drainage system.
7. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’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)

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman