Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council investigated
Mr X’s reports of flooding at his property. Its policy gives it the discretion to decide when to investigate, and it carried out proportionate enquiries and consulted with partners. There was some fault in how it communicated this to Mr X, but it has already apologised and offered to consider any further reports of flooding.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council did not properly respond to a report of flooding in the way it was required to do.
2. Mr X says the Council failed to properly investigate the cause of the flooding, did not consider other support that was available to him, and did not work effectively with other agencies.
3. Mr X also says the Council did not keep him updated about this issue.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I spoke to Mr X and considered the information he provided.
8. I considered the Council’s comments and the documents it provided.
9. I considered the Flood and Water Management Act 2014, which sets out responsibilities for local authorities.
10. I considered the Council’s local flood risk management strategy.
11. I considered the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA)’s policy for investigation of flood incidents, which the Council has included in its own strategy.
12. Mr X 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

What should have happened

13. The law says when the council is aware of a flood in its area, it must, if necessary, decide which other agencies have ‘flood risk management functions’. It must then decide which agency, if any, will act in response.
14. The Council’s strategy says it will decide if a flood investigation report is needed. It also says:

• Owners are also responsible for preventing flooding to their homes.
• Flood risk includes risk of groundwater infiltration.
• The Council should work with the local water and sewerage company and the Environment Agency.

15. The AGMA policy recommends that there should be a full investigation where more than five residential properties are affected. It says not all flood incidents will justify a full investigation, but the Council has discretion to investigate any other locally significant flooding incidents.
16. It says whether an investigation is carried out or not, the Council should gather information from incidents because frequency of flooding may also be a reason to do a full investigation. The policy says information gathering should be proportional to the flooding incident.

Background to complaint

17. Mr X told me he had recurrent flooding at his property from 2015 and he reported these matters to his local water company, which, in 2021, told him they had investigated the flooding and found nothing wrong with the sewer system. They also said the Council had responsibility for a nearby gully and drain, and they would contact the Council about this.
18. A gully is a road drainage system which takes the surface water away from the road and into a drain.

What happened

Pre-April 2022

19. In May 2021, the water company told the Council about the flooding at Mr X’s property. There is no evidence about what they told the Council, and the Council said it arranged to have the drains and gullies inspected. I have not seen any evidence confirming this instruction or when the work was scheduled to be carried out.
20. The Council says it inspects the gullies on the section of the road where Mr X lives in the following ways:
• Monthly driven inspection
• Six monthly walked inspection
• Annual walked inspection to a road adjacent to Mr X’s

21. The Council provided me with a maintenance report which said it carried out an inspection on the gullies adjacent to Mr X’s address in December 2020 and early December 2021. The report suggests it found the gullies were in working order and the Council cleaned them.
22. Because Mr X had not heard from the Council, he chased it through his MP and in mid-December he met with a highways manager from the Council and a representative from the water company.
23. The Council told Mr X that because they found no fault with either the drainage or sewer system, the cause of the flooding must be groundwater.
24. The Council has also provided information which shows that, in mid-December, it asked the Environment Agency to report on any failures of water culverts that could be causing Mr X’s flooding.
25. Following the meeting, the Council told Mr X that the flooding was a private matter for him to resolve and signposted him to the council tax relief web page.
26. In February, Mr X made a complaint. He said the Council could not have been working effectively with the water company because it had been unaware of his long-standing flooding reports.
27. He also told the Council it was failing in its statutory duties because when it told him he had to take action himself, it was not carrying out its function to protect ‘properties at risk’.
28. Mr X was also concerned the Council had not told him about when it carried out the inspection of the gully until their meeting and had not given him any information about its contact with the Environment Agency.
29. The Council went on to apologise that he had not been updated when the gully inspection occurred.
30. In March, Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two of the complaints process.

April 2022 onwards

31. On 25 April, the Council carried out a further check of the gullies near to Mr X’s home. A Council officer left Mr X a note saying they had checked the drainage system, had found what they considered was a defect in the sewer, and asked
    Mr X to contact the Council.
32. The Council told the water company about a potential for a defect in the sewer and asked them to check their system.
33. In May, the water company told the Council they had checked their system and explained there was no defect. The Council gave Mr X this update.
34. Later that same month, a council officer reported a further inspection of the gullies, now using a closed circuit television system (CCTV) which revealed a possible cause of flooding. The Council told Mr X about this potential cause.
35. In June, a further inspection by a supervisor, using CCTV, ruled out any fault in the gully. The Council told Mr X that the drains were working and apologised for any confusion the earlier reports had caused.
36. In its stage two complaint response, the Council explained it had investigated as far as it needed to. It also offered to re assess any further flooding Mr X told it about in the future.

My findings

Pre-April 2022

37. The Council says the water company told it about a flooding incident at a private property in May 2021. There is no evidence about what the Council did at this point, but it is possible that it chose not to respond until Mr X followed this up, resulting in the December meeting.
38. The Council said it arranged to have the drains inspected and gullies cleaned. The maintenance schedule indicates this occurred in early December, but there is no evidence if this was part of a pre-planned inspection regime or was carried out before meeting Mr X later in the month.
39. Mr X also expressed concern the Council was not aware of the flooding before this meeting, and this was evidence it had not been working effectively with local partners. This was not fault, because there is no evidence the Council should have acted before this time. It had not been made aware of a significant flooding incident, as defined by AGMA policy.
40. At the December meeting and immediately afterwards, the Council’s position was that it had carried out an investigation involving local partners. The water company was at the meeting, and the Environment Agency was also consulted.
41. The Council’s approach was supported by AGMA’s policy, which only recommends a full investigation when more than five residential properties have been affected. The Council had the discretion to investigate fully, but decided this was not necessary, and has explained why. This was not fault by the Council.

April 2022 onwards

42. The further investigations the Council carried out in May and June were in response to Mr X’s escalated stage two complaint.
43. Mr X has expressed a view these investigations were carried out because the Council had a ‘defensive mindset’ because it had not earlier been compliant with its statutory responsibilities.
44. Except for the use of CCTV, there was no significant difference in the extent of enquiries before and after Mr X’s complaints. I can find no fault in the Council approaching these matters in a way which it considered proportionate and incremental. The AGMA policy does not stipulate the minimum standards of an investigation in any case.
45. I also note Mr X was contacted by the Council on two occasions in this period, indicating a defect in either the sewer or drainage had been found, and this was discovered not to be the case. This may have caused Mr X uncertainty, but this was unlikely to have been significant, and it was not fault because the Council was giving him updates in line with his earlier requests.
46. The first time the Council told Mr X about the level of severity (five or more properties affected) which would mean it needed to act, was in May 2022. This information is available on-line, but by not telling Mr X about this earlier on, the Council failed to alleviate his worries that he was not getting all the support he believed he should be. This was fault and likely caused Mr X uncertainty about the Council’s responsibilities.
47. The Council has already apologised for not fully explaining the actions it had taken in line with his initial reports and offered to reassess any further flooding reports. This is a sufficient remedy for any injustice Mr X has experienced.

Back to top

Final decision

48. There is no fault in the way the Council responded to a report of flooding at Mr X’s home. Any fault in communicating the Council’s role has already been remedied before the Ombudsman’s involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman