Summary: Mr D complained the Council has failed to take adequate action to resolve the flooding into his property from the highway. We find the Council delayed dealing with Mr D’s report of a blocked gully, and it failed to keep him updated. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused to Mr D.

The complaint

1. Mr D complained the Council has failed to take adequate action to resolve the flooding into his property from the highway. He says the Council took nearly 11 months to clear the blocked gully, but the problem persists.
2. Mr D says it has taken a considerable amount of effort to resolve the issue. He wants the Council to raise the kerb line to the lower access road which will stop the flow of water from the highway.

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. 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)
5. If we are 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

6. I considered information Mr D submitted with his complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
7. Mr D and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr D has had issues with water from the highway flowing into his property for several years. He contacted the Council more recently on 1 October 2019. He said the water from the highway was flooding his property.
9. The Council conducted a site visit on 4 October. It found no evidence of flooding.
10. Mr D contacted his local councillor (Councillor A) on 8 October. He sent photographs of the flooding and said the Council had failed to resolve the problem. He said the gully outside his neighbour’s property was blocked, which was making the matter worse. Councillor A acknowledged Mr D’s email on 22 October and said he would take the matter forward.
11. Mr D chased Councillor A for a response on 4 November and 16 January 2020. As Mr D still not heard anything he contacted a different councillor (Councillor B) on 25 February. He outlined the issues and said the gully outside his neighbour’s property was still blocked.
12. Councillor B forwarded Mr D’s emails to the Council on 26 February. This included Mr D’s communication with Councillor A.
13. The Council responded on 4 March and said it inspected the site on 27 February. It said the gully outside Mr D’s neighbour’s property was blocked and so it had passed the matter to its jetting crew to carry out a further investigation. It said three hours after the rain had stopped, there was still a small pool of water visible on the highway. Finally, it said it could not provide a timescale of when it would complete the work.
14. Mr D contacted Councillor B on 30 July and said the Council still had not dealt with the blocked gully. Councillor B responded on 4 August and said the jetting would take place within the next four to six weeks.
15. The Council attended the site on 20 August. It cleaned the gully and noted the drainage systems were working correctly.
16. Mr D complained to the Council on 15 October. He outlined his contact with Councillor A and B. He said the matter was still not resolved as he was still experiencing flooding.
17. The Council issued its response to Mr D’s complaint on 27 October. It said its jetting crew visited the site on 20 August. The jetting crew found the drainage system was clear and in working order. It said there is a private pipe which takes water from the highway through his garden via a chamber. It also suggested that Mr D could contact his neighbour to install a speed hump to stop the water entering his property from the highway.
18. Mr D contacted Councillor B and said the Council installed the private pipe which takes water from the highway into a ditch at the back of his property. He said the Council had accepted it is water from the highway that is causing the problem.
19. Councillor B forwarded on Mr D’s further concerns to the Council. The Council responded and said it had previously discussed the concerns with Mr D in 2015. Officers noted the ditch to the rear of his property needed clearing, but it was Mr D’s responsibility as he is the landowner. It also said it did not hold a record of who installed the pipe across Mr D’s property, but the pipe was for the landowner to maintain. It said if Mr D had a written agreement to say it would maintain the pipe, it would investigate the matter further.
20. The Council also explained the improvements which need to be made are on Mr D’s private property, and therefore it had no responsibility to take any further action.
21. Mr D remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and referred the matter to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

22. The records show the Council visited the site and found that its drainage systems were in good working order. It also explained to Councillor B the flooding that Mr D is experiencing is because of a private pipe that is on his property, and therefore it would not take any further action. The Ombudsman cannot decide the ownership or question the liability of the pipe or the ditch at the back of Mr D’s property. This is a matter for the courts. I am satisfied the Council inspected the site and has explained why it will not take any further action.
23. However, I am concerned with the delay in the Council dealing with Mr D’s concerns and its communication with him. When Councillor B contacted the Council on 26 February 2020, she provided it with Mr D’s emails with Councillor A. Therefore, the Council was aware that Mr D had been waiting for nearly five months for a resolution. While it did inspect the site relatively quickly, it then wrote to Councillor B and said it could not give any timescale of when it would clear the gully. It then took a further five months to clean the gully. This is fault. The Council should have considered giving the issue some priority given the length of time Mr D had been waiting. I would have also expected the Council to have given Mr D an approximate timeline of when it would resolve the matter, reviewed the matter at key intervals, and kept him informed along the way. As this did not happen, Mr D was left with little choice to contact Councillor B again on 30 July 2020.
24. The Council’s delay and failure to keep Mr D updated caused an injustice because he was put to avoidable time and inconvenience in raising the issue again. I recommend the Council takes steps to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

25. To address the injustice caused by fault, by 5 October 2021 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mr D.
• Pay Mr D £100 which is a symbolic gesture to reflect his avoidable time and inconvenience.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have found fault by the Council, which caused Mr D an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman