Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of the highway drainage system. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to carry out a proper repair to a highway drainage pipe which she says could result in flooding of her home in future. She says the Council should have used a more satisfactory means of repair as suggested by a private surveyor she employed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X says her home was flooded in 2019/2020 caused by run-off from a damaged highway drainage pipe. The pipe had been inadequately repaired by a utility company after they severed a 6” drainage pipe and replaced a section with much smaller bore pipes. In 2021 the Council’s contractors carried out a further repair but used smaller 4” pipe and a cement joint instead of a suitably-sized sleeve joint.
6. Mrs X’s employed a private surveyor to report on the work and the report said the repair may or may not fail in the future because the repair was not a like-for-like instalment. She complained to the Council about the repair and her concerns but the Council told her that the works were satisfactory and it would not consider further improvements to the drainage system as she had preferred.
7. The Council is the highway authority and it has a duty to maintain the public highway for traffic and pedestrians. It does not have a statutory duty to the owners of adjacent land and property when drainage from the highway is concerned. When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of highway repairs.
8. If Mrs X suffers flooding in future from run-off or failed drainage pipes then this would be a civil negligence matter. It would be reasonable for her to make a claim against the Council’s insurance or to the courts if liability is not accepted.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of the highway drainage system. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman