Summary: Ms X complains that the poor resurfacing of her road by the Council has led to flooding in her back garden. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council’s resurfacing of her road was carried out to a very poor standard and that as a result her back garden floods. She says this has caused great stress and she wants the Council to remedy the problem.

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)
3. 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms X and the Council. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

What I found

5. In 2019 the Council resurfaced Ms X’s road. This led to an area of water pooling outside the front of Ms X’s home, and that of a neighbour’s, which the Council resolved by installing a gully.
6. About a year later Ms X contacted the Council with the problem she had also reported back in 2019 which concerned the flooding of her back garden. She complained this too was caused as a result of the poor road resurfacing.
7. The Council investigated the matter, visiting Ms X’s property during a period of heavy rain to see if the road or its infrastructure was causing Ms X’s back garden to flood. It also carried out a dye test to see if the gullies were running into the drainage system. However, it found no evidence to support a link between the road resurfacing and the flooding. Instead it suggested to Ms X that a significant contributory factor in the flooding might be that her back garden was effectively sealed by concrete bases which formed part of her boundary fencing. It explained to Ms X that this was a private matter for her to resolve but that if any independent survey she commissioned suggested the road resurfacing work was a contributory factor it would look again at the matter.
8. Ms X has not commissioned a survey but says workmen working at a neighbour’s property told her work to dig up her garden and lay drainage pipes would cost about £2000.

Assessment

9. I understand concerns about the flooding of her back garden have caused great stress to Ms X. However, the Council investigated the matter and found no link between the flooding and the road it resurfaced at the front of her property.
10. The flooding of her back garden is a private matter for Ms X, and/or her insurance company, to address. The Council has told Ms X it will consider the findings of any independent survey she arranges and it is open to her to pursue this course of action.
11. I have seen no evidence to suggest the Council acted with fault in dealing with Ms X’s concerns about flooding in her back garden and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman