Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to work carried out to a watercourse by the landowner. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s response to various issues he raised in connection with work carried out by the landowner to a watercourse close to his property. He says the Council did not follow the proper procedures and that the owner used his connections in the Council to avoid doing so.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X contacted the Council about work being carried out by the landowner to a watercourse close to his home. A senior officer visited the site and clarified with Mr X what his concerns were.
7. The officer met with Mr X at the site and followed up by sending an email to address the concerns he had raised. The Council explained that due to a misunderstanding within the Council the owner had not been advised that he needed to obtain a consent for the works as he should have been. It further explained that while the Council did not issue retrospective consents, had the owner applied, the consent would have been granted as the structure being built was deemed acceptable in line with ordinary watercourse consents.
8. In response to Mr X’s concerns about the risk to the public of a fall from the new structure, the Council advised that although it did not consider the new structure to be higher than the old, the owner had agreed to install a rail along the edge of the culvert. With regard to Mr X’s concerns about scour, while the Council noted it did have powers to require works for maintaining flow of watercourses, at the present time it did not consider there to be an issue which required the Council to request further action by the landowner.
9. While Mr X may not be satisfied with the Council’s response to his complaint, it is not our role to act as a point of appeal. The Council investigated his concerns and an officer visited the site but it decided no further action from the owner was required at this time. We cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision here and I have seen no evidence to suggest fault affected it.
10. There was fault when an error from within the Council meant the landowner was not advised to apply for consent for the works. However, it has said that even if consent had been sought, it would have been granted. If Mr X has evidence of some form of corruption or collusion between the owner and officers at the Council, he can present this to the police for investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman