Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action against a nuisance reported by Mr X. This is because an investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, says the Council should investigate a statutory nuisance caused by waste water entering his property and then require the water company to abate the nuisance by carrying out the appropriate repairs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We cannot question whether an organisation’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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
6. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

My assessment

7. For a number of years, a property owned by Mr X has suffered from damp and water penetration.
8. Recently the Council’s Environmental Health Team carried out a joint drainage investigation/survey with the water company. Its findings found no evidence to suggest the problem with damp and water penetration was caused by a gully outside his home. It also made enquiries of the occupiers of the adjacent property but found no pipework that could be causing a leak into his property and no evidence of blocked or damaged drains within either property which would lead to it using its enforcement powers.
9. Mr X complained to the Council because he did not accept the findings of its investigation and asked that enforcement action be taken against the water company to force it to undertake further gully repairs to those it had carried out in 2019.
10. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It explained it would not be taking this action because it had found no evidence the gully was leaking and because it was the responsibility of the water company, and not the Council, to investigate problems with the public sewer network.
11. While I understand Mr X’s frustrations in trying to find the cause of the damp problem, it is not our role to review the professional judgement of officers. We cannot question decisions made by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. While Mr X may not accept the findings of the Council’s investigations, I have seen no evidence to suggest fault in its handling of this matter.
12. It is open to Mr X to pursue matters himself via the Magistrates Court under the Environmental Protection Act and with the water company and Ofwat.
13. In responding to my draft decision, Mr X disputes that the Council carried out a proper investigation due to the limited nature of the action it took to look into the matter. However, while Mr X may not agree with the outcome of its investigation, the Council did investigate but it found no evidence to suggest the damp problem was being caused by a defective gully.
14. In responding to Mr X’s complaint, the Council told him that as the sewerage authority, the water company is the body responsible for investigating leaking sewers and that the relevant legislation is the 1991 Water Industry Act. As previously mentioned, Mr X can contact Ofwat, the regulatory body governing the water and sewerage industry.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman