Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about surface water flooding on a road near his house. Even if there has been Council fault in how it has sought to resolve the flooding, the matter does not cause Mr X sufficient personal injustice to warrant us investigating. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision on the works required and the priority given to them to justify us investigating. Investigation would also not achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to resolve surface water flooding on a road near his home.
2. Mr X says passing vehicles spray water on pedestrians. He considers the situation is a health, safety and welfare concern and believes there will be a serious accident. He wants the Council to do works to resolve the flooding.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X, online maps, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We recognise Mr X or other pedestrians may be inconvenienced by having to time their approach to the area to avoid being splashed by passing vehicles, or by staying away from the area when the road is flooded. But the flooding does not cause a significant enough personal injustice to Mr X, including health, safety or welfare issues, to justify us using our resources to investigate this complaint. Even if there has been fault by the Council in the way it has sought to deal with the issue, the level of injustice caused by the flooding does not warrant us investigating. We realise Mr X believes the floods will cause a serious accident. But we cannot base an investigation on a speculative injustice from an event that has not happened. Concern about what might happen is not a significant personal injustice to Mr X justifying an investigation.
7. The Council has recognised the need to do works to fix the flooding and has said it will be done in future. Officers and Council contractors have investigated the situation and reached their professional judgement on what needs to be done. It is for councils to determine which of its flooding issues it should prioritise. We recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council and considers the problem could be fixed more simply and sooner. But we cannot criticise a council’s professional judgement unless there is evidence of fault in the process it used to make its decision, and but for that fault a different decision would have been made. There is not enough evidence of such fault here to warrant us investigating. It is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
8. The Council has put the drain works on its schedule. If we did investigate this matter, this is the type of complaint outcome we might achieve. We would not achieve a different outcome by investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• even if there has been fault in the way the Council has dealt with the road flooding, it has not caused Mr X such a significant personal injustice which warrants us investigating; and
• there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision on the works required and the priority given to them to justify an investigation; and
• an investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman