Summary: We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint about flooding from a road gulley and watercourse. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council. Mr Q may also go to court if he thinks the Council has failed to maintain the gulley or watercourse and is responsible for the flooding.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I have called Mr Q, complained that Staffordshire County Council has failed to maintain a road gulley and a watercourse at the back of his property. He said the Council’s failure had resulted in his garden and property flooding.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr Q provided. I considered the information the Council provided. I considered Mr Q’s comments on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. If a person owns land or property next to a watercourse this normally makes them the riparian owner. Among other things, being a riparian owner means a person is responsible for maintaining the stretch of watercourse next to their land.
7. The Land Drainage Act 1991 gives the Council the power to serve notices on riparian owners requiring them to take action to maintain a watercourse.
8. If a person believes a highways authority is failing to maintain a highway it is responsible for, he may serve a notice on the authority. If necessary, the person may then go to court for an order requiring the authority to repair the highway within a reasonable period.
9. Staffordshire County Council is a highway authority.

What happened

10. A highway gulley discharges water into a watercourse that runs along the back of Mr Q’s property. During storms, the watercourse overflows and floods Mr Q’s garden and property. This has been happening for several years, and has happened four times in 2020.
11. Mr Q told the Council its gulley was blocked. He later complained to the Council. In response it said:

• it had cleaned and jetted its gulley;
• Mr Q was the riparian owner of the watercourse running along the back of his property;
• it decided not to take enforcement action against riparian owners along the watercourse, partly because Mr Q was the only person reporting flooding;
• instead, the Council said it would liaise with its Flood Risk Management Team to identify other riparian owners and tell them of their responsibilities;
• it had contacted the Environment Agency to find out if it had inspections or maintenance planned so it could check whether the connection to the watercourse was the cause of the flooding.

12. Mr Q complained to us. He said he had not known he was the riparian owner of the watercourse until the Council told him. Mr Q said no measures were put in place to protect residents when a housing estate (approved by the Borough Council) was built nearby many years ago. The watercourse was widened at the same time without consultation. He said he and his wife suffer anxiety and distress whenever there is heavy rain as they need to prevent floodwater entering their home.
13. In response to the draft decision, Mr Q said the Council is responsible because it is discharging storm water into the watercourse and is knowingly flooding properties.

Assessment

14. We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint.
15. When Mr Q reported a blocked gulley the Council cleaned and jetted it. But, if he believes the Council is failing to maintain the gulley, he may serve a notice on the Council and, if necessary, go to court. I think it would be reasonable for him to do so.
16. However, it seems to me the main issue is the watercourse at the rear of Mr Q’s property. Mr Q did not know he is a riparian owner of the watercourse until the Council told him. The Council considered whether to serve notices on riparian owners (which would include Mr Q) and has properly explained why it did not do so. It has also taken the other action described in paragraph 11 to try and resolve the flooding. So it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council.
17. In addition, the Council did not approve the housing estate, nor does it think it is responsible for maintaining the watercourse. Mr Q thinks the Council should do more to clear the watercourse as it is discharging storm water into it and is knowingly flooding his land. It is not our role to determine who is legally responsible for maintaining the watercourse, or whether the Council is responsible for the damage to Mr Q’s property. Those are matters for the courts to decide. So, it would be reasonable for Mr Q to go to court if he thinks the Council is responsible.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr Q’s complaint for the reasons given in the Assessment.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman