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.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, says the Council failed to:
• Complete works outside Mrs X’s home at the time agreed or complete them within a reasonable time;
• Provide accurate information on completing the works;
• Properly investigate if the Council had completed the works.
2. Mrs X says she first told the Council about the lack of drainage outside her home in 2014 and again in 2016. The Council said it would carry out work, but Mrs X says it did not do so until January 2020. It undertook work outside a nearby home around the corner from Mrs X before completing work outside Mrs X’s home. Mrs X says she continued facing the risk of flooding outside her property with the associated inconvenience and had to complain several times before the Council carried out the work.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. If satisfied with a council’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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. In considering this complaint I have:
• Contacted Mrs X and read the information presented with her complaint;
• Put enquiries to the Council and reviewed its responses;
• Researched the relevant law, guidance and policy;
• Shared with Mrs X and the Council my draft decision and reflected on comments received.

Back to top

What I found

6. The Council is responsible for the repair and upkeep of the public highway outside Mrs X’s home. In 2014 and again in 2016 Mrs X complained about the lack of drains causing flooding in the roadway outside her home which created dangerous conditions especially in winter. The Council says it carried out works to correct dips in the highway in February 2015. The Council painted the word ‘gulley’ on the road surface marking where it intended to install a new drainage gulley.
7. In 2016 Mrs X asked the Council what it intended to do about the gulley. The Council told her it intended to carry out the work when funds allowed.
8. In 2016 the Council also responded to a complaint from residents around the corner from Mrs X’s home about flooding outside their property. When commenting on my draft decision Mrs X says the property is in a different road and not a near neighbour. In November 2017 the Council decided it should install a gulley outside this property. It completed that work in August 2018 but not the work outside Mrs X’s home. The Council says engineers believed this new gulley would drain the area outside Mrs X’s home as well and so the Council did not need to complete the original work. Mrs X says as the new works are not next to or continuous with the area marked ‘gulley’ she cannot see how they reached this view. In what the Council recognises as an error, the officers cancelled the original order for works outside Mrs X’s home. However, the Council did not tell Mrs X it had decided to cancel the works or explain why.
9. When Mrs X complained about the lack of work in 2019 Council officers told her it had completed the work. The Council’s records showed the work completed outside the other resident’s home and the cancellation of the original works. However, the officers did not tell Mrs X the Council had cancelled the order for work outside her home instead they just told her the Council had completed the work. Mrs X knew that to be untrue and complained.
10. A further inspection in 2019 identified the area still needed the gulley outside Mrs X’s home and the Council agreed to complete it which it says it did in November 2019.
11. Mrs X wanted the work completed but says this has taken too long. Mrs X says it is wrong the Council completed the work outside the other resident’s home before completing work it had promised to carry out outside her home. Mrs X had to follow up the lack of work with the Council.
12. The Council says highway safety inspections and cleansing meant the Council reduced the risk of water collecting outside Mrs X’s home while she awaited the gulley’s installation.
13. The Council says the gulley although necessary did not meet any urgent works criteria. Therefore, the Council could not complete the work until it had the necessary funds and it completed urgent or higher priority work in the area. It usually completes about 27% of non-urgent repairs within 60 days.
14. In commenting on my draft decision, the Council says it gave works at the nearby property priority because in its assessment the residents there experienced much more serious flooding. Due to a genuine human error the Council says it cancelled the works outside Mrs X’s property. Although the Council placed both programmes of work in the same priority category (Category 3) it says both formed part of a much larger work programmed involving thousands of non-urgent tasks. Within the category it may give extra priority to more urgent work.

Analysis – was there fault leading to injustice?

15. Councils must have in place mechanisms for deciding priority in highway repairs. My role is not to decide what priority the Council should give to work, but how the Council responded to concerns about highway repairs. If there has been fault, I must decide if it caused injustice and what the Council should do to put that right.
16. In 2016 the Council agreed the highway outside Mrs X’s home needed a drainage gulley. The work formed part of general highway upkeep and so Mrs X could expect to wait for a time before the Council completed it.
17. The decision in 2017 to create a gulley at a property in the same area but not next to Mrs X’s home should have resulted in further contact with Mrs X. The Council should have told Mrs X why it had decided it no longer needed to carry out the works outside her home. Had it contacted Mrs X the Council would have learned of the its error in believing the new works would help Mrs X. I find the Council acted with fault.
18. Officers responding to Mrs X’s understandable concerns failed to properly report what the Council’s records said leading them to give Mrs X inaccurate and misleading information. Officers told her twice the Council had completed the works. That is poor customer service and I find the Council at fault.
19. The work outside the other house in the area had similar priority to the work outside Mrs X’s home. Therefore, I find but for the faults identified the Council may have created this gulley in 2018 when it completed the work in the nearby road. I find the Council at fault for its management of the works and for the delay in completing them.
20. The Council says it has completed the works which is what Mrs X said she wanted it to do when she complained to the Ombudsman in August 2019. The Council considered the complaint under its own complaints procedure and upheld it. This resulted in officers receiving training to prevent a recurrence. I welcome that action.

Recommended and agreed action

21. In recognition of the inconvenience caused I recommend, and the Council agrees to within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mrs X for the failings in its management of the works and responses to her concerns;
• Pay Mrs X £100 in recognition of the avoidable inconvenience caused to her.

Back to top

Final decision

22. In completing my investigation, I find the Council acted with fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman