Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal to amend the data it provided for the local surface water flood risk map maintained by the Environment Agency. 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, Mr X, complained about the Council failing to consider his complaint that the data it provides for the surface water flood risk map does not accurately show the risk to his property. He says that as a result of the inaccuracy of the map he finds it difficult to get insurance and it may affect the value of his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

4. The Council provides data to the Environment Agency which maintains a surface flood risk map which is accessible to the public. Mr X says his property is placed in a high-risk area along with a nearby street even though they have no previous history of flooding. His property is higher than the river level by more than 2 meters and he says the Council should take this into account when it provides data for the map.
5. Mr X asked the Council to reassess the data and to carry out a visit to the site and check the land and river levels. The Council told him that the normal height of the river does not preclude a site from being affected by flooding in adverse weather situations. Other topographical features are taken into account and this includes surface water flooding which can occur before it reaches watercourses. It is satisfied that the current map is correct and it will not change it unless Mr X provides additional evidence that the area is safe from flood risk.
6. Mr X says it would cost up to £50,000 to obtain a private survey and the Council and Environment Agency should carry out their own investigation to correct the map.
7. When considering complaints, we may not act like an appeal body and question the merits of the decision the Council has made, or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. Instead, we focus on the process by which the decision was made, and where we find fault in that process, we then determine whether or not it has caused the complainant a significant injustice.
8. In this case it is a matter for the Council as lead local flood authority to decide what data is recommended to the Environment Agency for the upkeep of the flood risk map.

Back to top

Final decision

9. 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