Summary: Mr D complained the Council failed to take preventive action when he reported a blocked drain. We find the Council was at fault for its communication with Mr D. The Council apologised for this when it responded to Mr D’s complaint. It has also agreed to carry out service improvements to prevent a reoccurrence of the fault.

The complaint

1. Mr D complained the Council failed to take preventive action when he reported a blocked drain. He says the Council’s failure to act in a timely manner led to the flooding of his grounds and septic tank.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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

5. I considered information Mr D submitted with his complaint. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered information it sent in response.
6. 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

7. Mr D has experienced flooding the past few years. He called the Council on 23 December 2020 and explained the drain by his house was blocked and the water levels were rising. He said he was reporting it early to prevent flooding. The Council said it would pass the matter to its highways team to deal with.
8. The Council experienced widespread flooding in the local area from 18 to 20 January 2021 because of a storm. One months’ worth of rainfall fell in two days. This resulted in 700 reports of flooding and 30 road closures.
9. Mr D called the Council again on 20 January and said his road was flooded. The Council said it could not give a timescale of when an officer would attend the site.
10. Mr D also called the Council’s emergency line on 21 January and left a message. He said flood water was gushing from the road towards his septic tank. Mr D says no one called him back so he called the emergency line again a few hours later and spoke to a call operative. He explained the flooding issue again.
11. Mr D called the Council for an update on 25 January. He said he had called several times but had not received contact from anyone. The Council said it would chase the matter up.
12. A Council officer attended the site on 26 January. He filed a request for drain jetting the following day.
13. Mr D called the Council on 29 January and asked for an update. The Council said the officer who had previously attended the site would call him back.
14. The officer called Mr D on the same day. Mr D told him no one had turned up and the flooding was getting worse. He said the lack of response was unacceptable. The officer said it would speak to a senior officer about the urgency of the situation.
15. The Council attended the site on 30 January to clear the water on the road, but not the blocked drain. Mr D called the Council on 1 February and said the drains were still blocked. The Council said it would chase the matter up with the officer.
16. The Council cleared the drains and completed the jetting works on 9 February.
17. Mr D complained to the Council in March. He said it had taken 29 days to deal with the blocked drain and this led to flooding. He said the problem started three years ago because of a poorly executed highways drainage plan.
18. The Council responded to Mr D’s complaint and said the flooding he experienced coincided with significant weather events. It said highways drains are not designed to cope with extreme volumes of water. Therefore, it would not have prevented the flooding if it had dealt with the blocked drain earlier. It said Mr D’s phone call on 23 December would not have prompted an urgent response as there was no risk to life. It should have provided an update by 25 January in line with the 20-working day timeframe. It missed the deadline by one day because of competing priorities due to the storm.
19. The Council said it was sorry Mr D could not speak to someone following his first call to the out of hours line and that he did not receive a call back. It said it does not provide a general emergency service, and if there is an immediate threat to life people should call 999. It said there was no evidence to suggest the drainage work carried out in 2018 was the cause of the issue. Finally, it said it filed the request for jetting on 27 January. It completed the jetting works at the earliest possible opportunity after receiving lots of similar requests. It apologised it did not clearly communicate this to Mr D.
20. Mr D responded to the Council and said it had ample time to prevent the flooding. He said it could have resolved the blocked drain before the storm. He also said he had been flooded three times since it carried out drainage work in 2018.
21. The Council issued its final response to Mr D’s complaint. It said it is not possible or practical to respond to all reports of blocked drains if no flooding is present. It said preventive cleansing of the drains would not have prevented flooding because of the amount of rainfall.
22. Mr D remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response and referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

23. The Ombudsman cannot question the merits of a Council’s decision unless there is procedural fault in the way it was reached. If a council has followed the appropriate procedures, considered all relevant information, and given clear and cogent reasons for its decision, we generally cannot criticise it. We cannot uphold a complaint simply because someone does not agree with what a council has done.
24. The Council explained to Mr D in response to his complaint that it has a risk-based approach to flooding. It prioritises reports when flooding is posing an immediate danger to highway users or flood water is threatening to cause internal property flooding. The blocked drain that Mr D reported on 23 December did not fit the criteria. I appreciate Mr D strongly disagrees with the Council’s approach and he thinks it should have resolved the blocked drain much sooner. However, I am satisfied the Council properly considered the matter in accordance with its risk-based approach and therefore I have no grounds to criticise it.
25. The Council experienced a high demand on its services after the storm. Therefore, I cannot criticise the short delay in it attending the site after Mr D reported flooding.
26. Mr D is also unhappy with the Council’s communication with him after he reported the flooding. The Council apologised to him for not calling him back when he called the out of hours line. It also apologised it did not clearly communicate to him about the jetting works. I agree the Council’s communication should have been better and this caused Mr D frustration at a challenging time.
27. The Council says it will now implement a more proactive approach to its communication, including a dedicated adverse weather page, to better manage customer’s expectations and keep them more informed. It is also producing written guidance for staff working on the adverse weather desk to support them with signposting customers to any appropriate resources. This will enable them to provide consistent and accurate responses to enquiries. The Council’s apology and the service improvements it has agreed to implement are suitable measures to address Mr D’s injustice.
28. Mr D says he wants the Council to do more regular maintenance of the drainage. When the Council responded to my enquiries, it said it is currently carrying out a programme of emptying highway drains. The data collected during this programme will help inform a new drain emptying schedule which may result in more regular maintenance near to where Mr D lives. However, this is not guaranteed.
29. I should add that, if damage has occurred or occurs in future, for which Mr D considers the Council is liable, this will be a matter for the Council’s insurers and, if necessary, the courts. Although we can criticise failures in the Council’s administrative process, we do not have the power to make findings on liability for property damage.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. By 8 February 2022, the Council has agreed to provide evidence that it has:

• Created a dedicated adverse weather webpage that acts as a central hub where customers can get advice, information and support before, during and after periods of adverse weather.
• Produce written guidance for staff working on the adverse weather desk to support them with signposting customers to appropriate resources. This will enable them to provide consistent and accurate response to enquiries.

Back to top

Final decision

31. There was fault by the Council, which Mr D an injustice. The Council has apologised to Mr D, and it has agreed to implement service improvements. This is a suitable way to address Mr D’s injustice and therefore I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman