Summary: We found fault on Mr J’s complaint about how the Council responded to his reports of his property flooding and to his formal complaint. The Council communicated poorly with him but took steps to improve communication in the future. The Council failed to keep proper records. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr J complains the Council failed to:
1. maintain the highways drains and carry out works to prevent the flooding of his property from surface water;
2. respond to his reports of flooding; and
3. respond to his formal complaint.
2. As a result, he was caused stress and anxiety, put to the time, trouble, and expense of running a pump to remove water from his cellar, all of which has affected his amenities.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered all the information provided by Mr J, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent him. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr J and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr J has lived in his property for about two years. On the road to the front of his drive is a drainage grate. Mr J believes the drains further down the road are damaged or have collapsed. He has a drainage pipe in his cellar which connects to the road’s drainage system. When there is heavy rainfall, the water in the system backs up into the pipe leading to his cellar causing it to flood. When it floods, it has up to one metre of standing, dirty water in it.
7. He has a pump running in the cellar to empty it but is worried about the risk of the water to his electric and gas supply. He tried blocking his cellar pipe to prevent it from flooding, but worried about the water causing damage to his house as the pipe runs underneath it.
8. While the Council installed some new pipework to the drain outside, he argues this made flooding of his property easier. He says a Council workman told him this. The Council does not accept this view. It told him this was a problem with the local water board’s system. Despite meetings, the water board refuses to accept it owns the blocked drain causing the problem.
9. The stress of the flooding affected Mr J’s health and caused him a great deal of anxiety. He is unhappy with the poor communication by the Council and the way it dealt with his formal complaint. He claims whenever he logged an online complaint, it closed the case within seconds. In response to my draft decision, he sent a screen shot of a record of his Council requests. This shows the three complaints he made were opened and closed either immediately or within one second of their creation.
10. The Council said Mr J first contacted it in February 2021 and two days later, an officer visited the site who decided the gullies needed jetting. The same month, Mr J lodged a complaint. This was after calling and leaving a message on seven separate occasions about flooding without receiving any response. The Council accepts it cannot provide a copy of its response to his complaint.
11. The officer revisited the site and recommended digging to investigate.
12. The jetting of the drains was done early the following month, but the Council was unable to send evidence of this.
13. Another officer visited the site and met Mr J in April. Up to the completion of the exploratory digging works in June and July, a number of site visits with a gully machine took place. The Council provided evidence of the excavation works. These found its gully connected to the water board’s drain. It carried out further jetting down the road, but this was blocked. Again, it could not provide evidence of the jetting done. The Council also replaced a section of excavated pipe.
14. Following dye testing and camera insertion in August, the Council identified private properties connecting to the drainage system. It concluded the main drain was the water board’s responsibility.
15. Mr J contacted the Council again in October. The following month, the Council recorded installing two gullies in the road near his house and a road junction. When he complained to the Council, an officer told him about it contacting the water board over the issue of ownership. An officer spoke to Mr J and explained: it replaced a section of pipe; works to the gully outside of his house would be scheduled for replacement in the following weeks; it was talking to the water board about ownership of the drain.
16. I have seen the CCTV report of the survey done in November.
17. The water board agreed to investigate the drainage system. Minutes of a joint meeting provided by the Council noted there was a ‘previously uncharted surface water system’ which took drainage from Mr J’s property. They also noted the water board’s system was blocked, and it would investigate connections between two roads.
18. In January 2022, Mr J complained again, and the Council chased the water board for an update. The water board did not accept it owned the drains.
19. The following month, the Council chased the water board again following a joint meeting at which the water board disagreed this section was a public sewer. It told the Council it was taking the matter to an internal panel later that month for a decision. The panel would decide whether this was the correct view. The water board was unaware several properties connected to this drain.
20. In March, Mr J sent his stage 2 complaint request. The Council contacted the water board. The water board told the Council it was investigating but had still not committed to carrying out repairs at this location. The Council response explained site investigations found a previously uncharted surface water system which is taking drainage from neighbouring properties which then drains in to a culvert. This information is with the water board which was expected to report back after a meeting.
21. The Council again met the water board several weeks later which said it would decide about ownership later that day but, this has still not happened. The minutes of the meeting show the Council believed it did not own the drains and there was a collapse in the public sewer on his road.
22. The Council’s view remains the problems are caused by a blockage downstream of Mr J’s house for which the water board is responsible. If the water board refuses to accept ownership and responsibility for the drain, the Council will investigate to see who is responsible for it. This could involve looking at possible riparian ownership (those who own land adjacent to a river or watercourse, for example) and ownership by the highways authority. It may also challenge the water board’s decision but is unaware of any statutory process dealing with the re-classification of water board assets. If discussions to reach an agreement failed, the Council might need to consider legal action.
23. The water board cleared Mr J’s cellar and capped off the drain leading to it.
24. It left his complaint open until it has a final response from the water board. It is unaware of any problem with complaints disappearing from its website and received no other reports about this as an issue.
25. The Council also explains reports about highways and requests for service are not usually responded to but, it has now introduced an automated system which provides customers with automated updates on their enquiries. The Council accepts it is unable to provide copies of formal responses to two of Mr J’s complaints.

My findings

Complaint a): maintaining drains and preventing flooding

26. I found no fault on this complaint for the following reasons:
1. At the heart of this complaint is an ongoing disagreement between the Council and the waterboard about responsibility and ownership for a section of the system causing problems for Mr J. The water board’s view is this is not a public sewer and has no responsibility for the problems Mr J faces.
2. While the Council and water board are unable to agree who owns and has responsibility for the drain, it is not our role to reach a decision on the issue.
3. The evidence shows the Council explained to the water board why it reached its view. The Council is waiting for the water board to clarify whether its view is confirmed by an internal panel. Despite chasing the water board, the Council is still waiting for this confirmation. The Council is not responsible for the delay by a third party.
4. On balance, I am satisfied the Council acted to maintain its drains. It carried out exploratory excavation works, replaced some pipework, did a dye test, installed new gullies, and carried out a CCTV inspection.
5. I am also satisfied the Council pursued the water board for its final decision about the disputed drain ownership. There is little more it can do but wait for its response.

Complaint b): responses to flooding

27. I found fault on part of this complaint for the following reasons:
1. I am satisfied the Council acted reasonably promptly to his reports and acted to resolve his problem of flooding. It visited the site, carried out exploratory excavation works, did dye testing, replaced some piping, installed two new gullies, and carried out CCTV of the drains.
2. The fault I found was with its record keeping as it could not provide evidence to show it carried out the jetting as claimed.
3. I consider this caused Mr J limited injustice as he has the uncertainty of not knowing whether the jetting was indeed done.
4. I also found fault with its poor communication when he made reports about flooding and the three online reports being closed almost at the time of him making them. Mr J made seven separate calls to the Council, for example, and left voice mail to which he received no responses. The nature of his reports would cause most people stress and not responding to them would only add to it. This is Mr J’s injustice.
5. The Council accepted reports about highways and service requests are not usually responded to although confirmed it now has an automated system providing automatic updates.

Complaint c): complaint handling

28. I also found fault on this complaint. This is because the Council accepts it could not provide copies of all of its responses to his formal complaint. The injustice to Mr J is a further loss of confidence in the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. I considered our guidance on remedies.
30. I also considered the action the Council took to ensure better communication with those making reports about problems with the highways in the future.
31. The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Mr J a written apology for its failures to: keep proper records; properly communicate with him; show how it dealt with his formal complaint.
2. Remind officers of the need to keep records of works carried out on their behalf.
3. Review why it could not provide copies of all complaint responses.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I found fault on Mr J’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman