Summary: Mr B complained about recent highway resurfacing works carried out by the Council near to his home. He said that as a result of the works his driveway floods in moderate to heavy rainfall. There was no fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. I will call the complainant Mr B. He complained about recent highway resurfacing works carried out by the Council near to his home. He said that as a result of the works his driveway floods in moderate to heavy rainfall .

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
3. 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)
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 the complaint and documents provided by Mr B and spoke to him. I asked the Council to comment on the complaint and provide information. I sent a draft of this statement to Mr B and the Council and considered their comments.

Back to top

What I found

Summary of the key events

6. As part of its general programme of highway maintenance the Council carried out some patching and resurfacing works on the road outside Mr B’s home. After the works were done Mr B said his driveway would flood at times of moderate to heavy rain when it had not done so before. He complained to the Council.
7. The Council responded. It did not consider the works done would have caused the problem Mr B was reporting. It did do some further works. Mr B considered that helped but it had not resolved the problem.

Analysis

8. It is not for us to determine whether someone’s property has been damaged or adversely affected as a result of action by the Council – that would be for the courts. That is an element of Mr B’s complaint, but I do not consider it is the key point.
9. His complaint was prompted and focused on the situation following the works to the road. The Council’s view was that there were no works immediately outside Mr B’s property and what was done would not have materially altered the drainage so as to adversely affect Mr B. There is no evidence of fault here. The Council has explained why it does not consider the works done would have altered the drainage and I have no basis to question that assessment. Mr B suggests we should ask for an independent highway engineer to look at the site. But our role is to look at administrative fault - we do not decide to between professional opinions so getting a further opinion on the situation would not aid my consideration. Ultimately, if Mr B considers the works done by the Council have adversely affected, or damaged, his property that would be something the courts would have to decide.
10. Mr B has raised a wider point – he considers the whole drainage system in the road is not fit for purpose. I don’t think the Council has addressed itself to that point because it was not the focus of the complaint. But I do think it would be reasonable for the Council to consider this point now and to respond to Mr B. In saying that, it is for the Council to decide whether improvement works are needed in accordance with its policy and procedure for prioritising such works. If Mr B was not happy with the response then he could make a further complaint to us.

Back to top

Final decision

11. There was no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman