Summary: Mr F complained about the Council’s handling of his reports about drainage issues in the Highway, which caused flooding of his garden and driveway. He also said it failed to keep him informed about its works. As a result, Mr F said he experienced distress and uncertainty. We found the Council failed to follow its Policy and caused delays. It also failed to keep Mr F properly informed about the progress of its planned works. The Council has agreed apologise and make payment to Mr F to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty this caused him. It also agreed to review how it keeps service users informed about its works to prevent ongoing flooding.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr F, complained about the Council’s handling of his reports of flooding from its drains near his property. He said it failed to:
• install an additional storm drain as it said it would in 2014;
• investigate and resolve the drainage issues without delay when he reported his concerns in 2020; and
• respond to his requests and keep him informed about the Council’s actions to resolve his drainage concerns.
2. As a result, Mr F said his garden and driveway were flooded each time it rains heavily, which caused him distress and uncertainty about the damage this may cause. He also said he has lost trust in the Council’s handling of the matter.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated Mr F’s concerns about the Council’s handling of his drainage concerns since 2020.
4. The final paragraph of this statement explains why I have not investigated other matters complained about.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. 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

8. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Mr F’s complaint and the Council’s responses;
• discussed the complaint with Mr F;
• considered the information provided by the Council in response to my enquiries;
• considered the relevant Law and Council Policy; and
• given Mr F and the Council the opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision and considered the comments I received.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant Law and Policy

Highways Act 1980

9. The duty to maintain highways includes maintenance of features of a highway relating to flood risk. Highway Authorities have powers under the Highways Act 1980 to lay new drains, erect barriers, cleanse existing drains or fill in ditches in order to drain roads or prevent surface water flowing onto roads.

Council Policy

10. The Council’s Policy says it will assess report of drainage issues and take appropriate action to resolve concerns. It says it aims to:
• do drainage maintenance within 28 to 90 days;
• investigate drainage concerns or repeated flooding within 28 days for strategic roads and 90 days for minor roads. It will carry out site flood risk assessments to determine if further works are required.

What happened

11. Mr F lives in his property which is next to one of the Council’s highways (the Highway). There are storm drains near his home which drains onto ditches through clay and concrete drainage pipes along the highway.
12. In 2013 Mr F said he told the Council about his drainage concerns in the Highway. He said the drains were not working properly to disperse rainwater when it rains heavily. He said his drainage concerns were not resolved, which resulted in his home being flooded in late 2013.
13. In 2014 Mr F told the Council about the drainage problems in the Highway and the flooding he had experienced.
14. In response the Council investigated his concerns. It found the flooding was caused by an exceptionally wet winter. It said it would install an additional storm drain and monitor nearby ditches to ensure land drainage was cleared and maintained.
15. Mr F said he did works to his property to limit the risk of flooding to his home. He also said he raised further concerns to the Council on several occasions between 2015 to 2019, as flooding occurred during heavy rainfall each year. However, his concerns were not resolved.
16. In early 2020 Mr F raised his concerns about the drainage in the Highway again to the Council as rainwater from the Highway had flooded his garden and driveway. He said it had failed to complete the drainage works it said it would since 2014.
17. In response the Council spoke with Mr F. It said it would arrange for its contractor (the Contractor) to assess the works needed to resolve the drainage issues.
18. Three months later, the Contractor had assessed the works needed through CCTV. Its report said it found several issues within a long stretch of the underground drainage pipes, which reduced the flow of water. This included:
• roots in several areas of the clay pipes;
• cracks and holes in concrete pipes
• dislocated and deformed concrete pipes;
• a foul waste pipe had come through the drainage pipe wall;
• a small part of its survey could not be completed due to broken equipment; and
• parts of the survey were abandoned due to not being able to pass a break in the pipe and not being able to pass debris.
19. The Contractor told the Council it had cleaned gullies, pits and most of the pipes. It also said it had tried to remove roots, but more work was needed. However, in addition to its reported concerns, it recommended removal of further roots and patches and lining to prevent ingress of roots.
20. A month later the Council arranged for some further cleaning of three gullies and two catchpits. It also noted it needed a further CCTV survey due to a broken drainage pipe.
21. In Autumn 2020, Mr F reported flooding of the Highway and his property boundary again to the Council. He told the Council it had not completed its works from earlier in the year as he was aware the Contractors equipment had broken.
22. The Council called Mr F a month later and explained it needed to do further works to resolve the drainage issues.
23. Mr F said he did not get any further information or responses from the Council. So, in early 2021 he complained to the Council about its handling of the drainage issues and its lack of communication with him since 2014.
24. Mr F also reported two further flooding’s of his driveway and garden to the Council in early 2021. He said these were also because of the Council’s failure to resolve the drainage issues in the Highway.

The Council’s responses to Mr F’s complaint

25. In response to Mr F’s complaint the Council apologised for the time it had taken to resolve the drainage issues. It agreed the were issues in the drainage and told Mr F about its planned works, which included further CCTV surveys. However, it did not uphold his complaint. It said this was because it had:
• attended to cleanse the drains following his reports of flooding;
• arranged for the drainage issues to be investigated further;
• kept Mr F updated about its works; and
• acted on his flooding concerns in 2014, but it had no further records of reports of flooding until 2019. It therefore assumed the works it had done was enough to resolve the issue.
26. The Council also said it had to prioritise works due to the number of enquiries it received. It explained its Contractor had 90 days to complete the planned works, however, it had asked its Contractor to do so as soon as possible.
27. Mr F remains unhappy with the Council’s handling of his concerns about the drainage issues in the Highway. So, he asked the Ombudsman to consider the matter.
28. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided its reports on Mr F’s concerns and the works it had done in 2020. It also included its records of the works for 2021, which shows a further CCTV survey was completed. As a result, it has arranged for further works. This includes repairs of defects, multiple dig ups, further root cutting, ditch regrading, clearing of the pipes and creating a sump below the end of the pipe. The records show some of the works have been completed. In addition, the Council also said it had not done any risk assessments of Mr F’s drainage concerns.

Analysis

Was there fault by the Council?

29. When Mr F reported flooding from the Council’s Highway in early 2020, the Council acted on his concerns within 90 days as set out in its Policy. It arranged for the drains to be cleaned and asked its Contractor to assess the works needed to resolve the drainage concerns.
30. It received its contractor’s report which showed the flow of water in the drains were reduced due to root, defects, dislocations, holes and other issues. However, I am not satisfied the Council’s actions in response to the Contractor’s report was enough. This is because its records show it only acknowledged further works were needed and did some more cleaning of the gullies and ditch.
31. It was not until late 2020 and January 2021, when Mr F had raised his complaint, the Council arranged for further a CCTV survey. And it was first in Spring 2021 the Council did further works to resolve the drainage issues.
32. I acknowledge the Council’s Policy says it will inspect repeated flooding issues within 90 days, which means any required works may take longer to resolve as it needs to prioritise drainage issues. However, I have found fault in the Council’s handling of Mr F’s drainage concerns. This is because:
• the Contractor’s report showed several defects and concerns for the water drainage which required further works and surveys;
• I have seen no evidence the Council did any works between from May 2020 until Mr F raised concerns again. Nor it had any plans for when the works would take place; and
• it did not complete a risk assessment, as set out in its Policy, for Mr F’s ongoing flooding issues and concerns set out by its contractor.
33. Also, I am not satisfied the Council kept Mr F properly informed about its works and plans to resolve his drainage concerns. The Council called Mr F after each of his reports of flooding, which included some of its plans to assess the works needed. However, it made no further contact with him to tell him about the issues it found, what works was required and when it will be completed.
34. I understand the Council has a tracking system to update service users on its website. However, this system provides very limited information. It does not explain what issues were found and what the Council is doing to resolve the issues. Nor does it give any indication when its works may be completed.

Complaint’s handling

35. I have not found fault in how the Council handled Mr F’s complaint. This is because it responded to his stage one complaint as set out in its Complaints Policy and there were no unnecessary delays in its stage two response.

Injustice

36. The Council’s faults did not cause damage to Mr F’s property as he took precautions to flood proof his home after a flooding five years ago. However, his driveway and garden continued to be flooded each time it rained heavily. I am satisfied this caused Mr F some distress and uncertainty due to the ongoing risk of damage to his home and garden.
37. I am also satisfied Mr F experienced some distress due to the uncertainty caused by the Council’s failure to keep him informed about its works and further planned.

Back to top

Agreed action

38. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mr F, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. Apologise in writing and pay Mr F £150 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty he experienced because of the Council’s delays and failure to keep him informed about its works to resolve the Highway drainage issues.
2. Inform Mr F about the works that has taken place and when it plans to complete the remaining works to resolve the Highway drainage issues.
39. Within three months of the final decision the Council should also:
1.  
2.  
3. Consider how it keeps service users, who experience ongoing flooding issues, informed about the progress of its works to resolve Highway drainage concerns.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault by the Council, which caused an injustice.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

41. I have not investigated Mr F’s concerns about the Council’s handling of his drainage concerns from 2013 to 2019. This is because this part of his complaint is late. I have seen no good reasons to exercise my discretion to investigate this period as Mr F could have used the Council’s complaints process and brought his concerns to the Ombudsman’s attention at the time.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman