Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed taking action following reports of blocked gullies in the road outside her property. Mrs X also complained about how the Council handled her complaint and says the Council’s actions caused her avoidable frustration. We found fault by the Council who agreed to provide a remedy to address the injustice identified.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council delayed taking action following reports of blocked gullies in the road outside her property. Mrs X also complained about how the Council handled her complaint. She says the Council’s actions caused her avoidable frustration. She would like the Council to provide a meaningful apology and to respond to resident’s queries in a timely manner.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
4. 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

5. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered the information she provided.
6. I made enquiries to the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. Mrs X and the Council have had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I have considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Gully cleaning

8. The Council has outsourced its street cleaning service, including gully cleaning, to a private contractor.
9. The Council says it cleans most gullies in its area every two years. It says where gullies are in roads that are prone to flooding, it cleans these gullies more frequently.
10. Residents can report issues and concerns to the Council via its website, including concerns about blocked gullies. The Council says its gully cleaning crews remove debris from the gully pots and flush water through the drain to make sure there are no blockages.

The Council’s complaints handling policy

11. The Council’s complaints policy says if it is unable to resolve a customer’s dissatisfaction at the first point of contact, there is a two-stage complaints process to follow.
12. At stage one, the Council says it will investigate and respond to complaints within 20 working days. If a service user is unhappy with the stage one response, they may request a stage two review. The Council says it will respond to stage two complaints within 20 working days or will tell the service user if the process will take longer.

What happened

13. This chronology includes key events in this case and does not cover everything that happened.
14. On 6 June 2022, Mrs X reported blocked gullies in her road via the Council’s website.
15. Mrs X reported her concerns about the gullies to the Council again on 20 June 2022.
16. On 7 July 2022, Mrs X complained to the Council. She said it had not responded to her concerns and had ignored her reports of blocked gullies, despite the area flooding in the previous year.
17. The Council replied to Mrs X on 8 July 2022 and referenced her report of blocked gullies from 20 June 2022. The Council said its contractor had visited but was initially unable to gain access to the gully. It said the contractor had subsequently confirmed all gullies checked were running clear apart from one. The Council said it had passed this matter on to its Highways department for further investigation.
18. On 9 July 2022, Mrs X sent photographs of the gullies to the Council. Mrs X said several gullies in the road were still full of mud and leaves.
19. The Council replied on 18 and 19 July 2022 and said an officer had checked again and found only one blocked gully. The Council said it had reported the gully to the Highways department.
20. Mrs X emailed the Council on 21 July 2022. She asked the Council why it had ignored her first complaint from 6 June 2022, why it had not contacted her after her second complaint on 20 June 2022, and why the Council’s contractors did not follow this matter up. Mrs X asked the Council why she only received a response after she made a formal complaint.
21. The Council replied on the same date. It said it was only aware of one complaint made on 7 July 2022, which it responded to on 8 July 2022. It said its contractors had visited the site on 20 June 2022 but were unable to access the gully due to the presence of parked cars. The Council said because its contractors visited the site as a result of an additional request rather than as part of its scheduled cleansing programme, they were not obliged to return. However, the Council said it had cleaned the gullies again on 20 July 2022 and identified one gully which was not free running; the Council said it had reported this to the Highways department.
22. Mrs X emailed the Council on 22 July 2022. She said the Council did not respond to her reports of blocked gullies made on 6 and 20 June 2022, and said although the contractor visited after the second report, it took no action. Mrs X also said no-one had let her know what was going on.
23. The Council replied on the same day and said a crew attended the site following the report made on 6 June 2022 and on 20 June 2022, although on the latter date, parked cars prevented the crew from gaining access to the gully. The Council said its facility for residents to report an issue via its website was an automated system, and that it was unable to respond directly to residents with the outcome of the service request due to the number of requests it receives.
24. Mrs X and the Council corresponded further via email in August 2022. In September 2022, Mrs X contacted a councillor as she remained dissatisfied with the Council’s actions. Mrs X asked for an explanation about what action the Council had taken regarding the gullies.
25. The Council told the councillor it was continuing to work on the issue of the blocked gully and would carry out further investigations with the use of a camera.
26. On 30 September 2022, the Council contacted Mrs X to acknowledge the councillor’s involvement in advance of a full response. The Council said it was taking Mrs X’s concerns very seriously and it apologised for the frustration caused. The Council said it was looking into what had happened and how the matter may be resolved.
27. The Council emailed Mrs X on 7 October 2022 and said it was sorry she felt the Council had not kept her informed of the progress in repairing the gullies. The Council said it had rodded the outlets but could not identify the blockage. It said the next step was to use a camera operated by the private utility company responsible for the wastewater treatment in the area. The Council said it had asked the utility company to attend the site and was waiting to hear back from it.

Mrs X’s complaint

28. Mrs X replied on 10 October 2022 and said the Council’s email of 7 October 2022 did not provide a full explanation of what had happened since June 2022. Mrs X said she would like the Council to answer the questions she had asked.
29. On 14 October 2022, the Council acknowledged Mrs X’s email and said it would like to register the query as a complaint. Mrs X agreed to this on 15 October 2022.
30. On 19 November 2022, Mrs X emailed the Council and said the deadline for responding to her complaint had passed. Mrs X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two and to add a further complaint about the late response.
31. The Council apologised to Mrs X on 21 November 2022 about missing the complaint response deadline. It acknowledged Mrs X’s new complaint regarding this and told Mrs X it would provide its response to the original complaint later that week.
32. On 25 November 2022, the Council provided its stage one response. It apologised that despite many months of correspondence, Mrs X felt the Council had not solved the root cause of the issues. The Council also apologised for the lateness of its complaint response.
33. The Council said it responded to Mrs X’s informal complaint of 7 July 2022 without delay (by email on 8 July 2022) and had received no other complaints until the one received in October. The Council said its reporting system operated via its website is not a complaints system.
34. The Council said that following investigation, it became clear the situation did not just relate to the gullies, and its Highways department and Environmental Services had carried out joint visits to the site. It said it was still investigating the issue but had not yet determined the cause of the blocked gully. The Council said it had referred the matter to the utility company for further investigation and said it was chasing them for an update.
35. Mrs X responded on 28 and 29 November 2022 and asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two. Mrs X said she considered the Council had not fully addressed her complaint and said her email dated 7 July 2022 clearly stated she wished to make a formal complaint at that time. She also said the Council’s response of 8 July 2022 said it was a Highways issue, but no one from the Highways department had contacted her. Mrs X said she would like to know what the Council was doing to get the utility company to sort the matter out.
36. On 13 December 2022, the Council provided its stage one response regarding its late response to Mrs X’s initial complaint. The Council acknowledged its response should not have been late and that it should have told Mrs X if it was going to be late. The Council said it had already apologised for this, and it acknowledged Mrs X’s frustration regarding the lack of updates and progress. The Council said it would send its stage two response to Mrs X’s initial complaint soon after.
37. The Council provided its stage two response on 22 December 2022. It acknowledged Mrs X’s email dated 7 July 2022 was titled “formal complaint” but was logged for initial complaint resolution. The Council apologised for not escalating the complaint to stage one sooner and acknowledged officers did not handle the transfer of Mrs X’s complaint between departments effectively. It said it recommended that staff would benefit from some refresher training regarding this issue. The Council said the matter of the blocked gully was in the hands of the utility company to investigate as the problem was located in the mainline to the storm drain. The Council said it would continue to seek updates from the utility company.

What happened next

38. Mrs X emailed the Council on 30 December 2022 and asked it to keep her fully informed regarding any progress with the utility company.
39. On 11 January 2023, the Council told Mrs X it had passed the information she had provided about the blockage to its flood risk officer; it provided a copy of an email dated 6 January 2023 from the flood risk officer to Mrs X which had been incorrectly addressed, and had therefore not previously been sent to Mrs X.
40. The flood risk officer told Mrs X that following investigation, they believed the cause of the blockage was in the surface water sewer, which is managed by the utility company. The officer said the Council was not allowed to access this part of the sewer as a result. The officer said their predecessor had previously contacted the utility company to ask it to investigate. The officer apologised to Mrs X as they did not know what had happened following this contact. The officer told Mrs X they would follow the matter up with the utility company.
41. Mrs X says the utility company does not accept complaints about gullies from the public, and only accepts complaints of this type from local authorities. Mrs X emailed the Council on 17 January 2023 and asked how long the Council would let the matter go on before making a formal complaint to the utility company.
42. The Council replied to Mrs X on the same day. It said the utility company was aware of the blockage and the Council would seek to clarify progress the following week.
43. The flood risk officer emailed Mrs X on 1 February 2023. They said when their colleague contacted the utility company in October 2022, they did not receive a reply; the officer said the matter was not subsequently followed up when their colleague then left the Council. The flood risk officer apologised for the delay and said they had contacted the utility company again. They said the utility company attended the site on 27 January 2023 and told the Council its drainage network was clear.
44. Mrs X replied and told the Council the drain was still full of water.
45. The Council said it had completed the range of investigations open to it and had received an update from the utility company advising the sewer was fully operational.
46. Mrs X emailed the Council on 21 February 2023. She said the Council had provided misinformation and had ignored her concerns. Mrs X said the stage two letter upheld her complaint but did not provide a meaningful apology.
47. The Council wrote to Mrs X and said the necessary works to the gullies had been undertaken. It said the gully in question had a high standing water level but did not present a flood risk concern. The Council apologised that Mrs X felt its communication with her had fallen short and offered to meet Mrs X at the site to address her concerns.
48. Mrs X met with representatives of the Council on 29 March 2023. Mrs X emailed the Council on 3 April 2023 regarding the meeting and said the Council had agreed to arrange for the drains to be rodded, and to pay for a camera inspection if this did not work.
49. Mrs X sent a further email to the Council on 19 April 2023. She said she had met with contractors at the site and that following an inspection, they believed the blockage was in the utility company’s mainline drainage system. Mrs X asked the Council to request the utility company carry out a camera survey to identify the blockage.
50. Mrs X remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response to her complaint and brought her complaint to us.
51. The utility company visited the site several times in May 2023. In June 2023, the utility company cleared the blockage from the drainage system.

Analysis – investigating the blocked gullies

52. The amount of information provided by Mrs X and the Council in response to my enquiries was considerable. In this decision statement, I have not made reference to every element of that information, but I have not ignored its significance.
53. Mrs X complains the Council delayed taking action following her reports of blocked gullies in the road outside her property. She says the Council took many months to identify the blockage was the responsibility of the utility company, and says the Council delayed raising a complaint to the utility company when the matter remained unresolved.
54. The Council says it did not delay taking action. It says it attended and cleaned the gullies in line with its street cleaning contract specifications, and subsequently reported a blockage to its Highways department. It says it carried out several visits as part of its investigation and identified that the issue lay within part of the drainage system managed by the utility company. The Council says it informed the utility company of the blockage and made follow up requests to it regarding the issue. The Council says it went above what it was required to do and undertook its own CCTV survey to identify the issue. It acknowledges there was a blockage but says the gully was still operational and did not cause any issues with surface water flooding. The Council acknowledges the issue took some time to investigate but says the issue was complex and ultimate responsibility to resolve the issue sat with the utility company.
55. I acknowledge Mrs X’s comments, however, the evidence partially supports the Council’s explanation. The evidence indicates the Council attended the site following Mrs X’s reports made in June 2022, and that it subsequently referred the issue to its Highways department, and then to the utility company. I have seen no evidence to indicate the Council did not act in accordance with its policy for gully cleaning regarding this matter.
56. I have reviewed the Council’s communications between its Waste and Street Cleansing departments, Highways department, flood risk officer and the utility company. Whilst I acknowledge the Council’s comments that it did not delay taking action, there is evidence of a delay by the Council in following up the matter of the blockage once it asked the utility company to investigate.
57. This is because the Council asked the utility company to investigate the blockage on 6 October 2022; it told Mrs X it was coordinating with the utility company shortly after. The Council received the utility company’s acknowledgement of its request on 20 October 2022.
58. On 11 January 2023, the Council told Mrs X an officer had contacted the utility company in October 2022, but it was unaware of any updates since then. The Council subsequently requested an update from the utility company on 12 January 2023.
59. The Council emailed Mrs X on 1 February 2023 and acknowledged it had not previously followed up its contact with the utility company when an officer left the Council in October 2022. The Council apologised to Mrs X for this delay.
60. The above demonstrates a delay by the Council for the period 20 October 2022 to 12 January 2023 as the Council did not follow up on its request to the utility company during this period. This finding of delay is supported by the Council’s email to Mrs X of 1 February 2023. The delay for the period 20 October 2022 to 12 January 2023 is fault.
61. The evidence shows the Council initially investigated the blockage itself, and referred the matter to the utility company once it determined the cause of the issue lay within the utility company’s remit. The Council did not incur delays during this period.
62. The evidence shows the Council was in communication with the utility company regarding the blockage from January 2023 onwards. The utility company told the Council it was investigating but could not find the cause of the problem. The Council did not delay progressing the matter from January onwards as the evidence demonstrates it remained in contact with the utility company to try to resolve the issue.

The Council’s handling of Mrs X’s complaint

63. Mrs X raised a formal complaint on 7 July 2022 regarding a lack of response to her reports of blocked gullies in June 2022. The Council says it responded to this on the following day. The Council’s records show it logged the contact from Mrs X as an “initial contact resolution” and it emailed Mrs X on 8 July 2022 with its response.
64. The Council’s complaints policy says, “If we are unable to resolve a customer’s dissatisfaction at the first point of contact, there is a two-stage complaints process to follow.” The policy therefore allows the Council to try to resolve service user’s dissatisfaction at the first point of contact. The Council used this approach when it emailed Mrs X on 8 July 2022 with its response.
65. On 10 October 2022, Mrs X raised several further concerns; at this point, the Council suggested treating the contact as a complaint. Mrs X agreed to this approach on 15 October 2022.
66. The Council emailed Mrs X on 21 November 2022 to apologise that its complaint response was late (outside 20 working days). The Council subsequently provided its response on 25 November 2022 and again apologised for the late response. As the response was outside the 20 working days specified by the Council’s complaints policy, the delay in responding to Mrs X is fault.
67. Mrs X requested a stage two investigation on 28 November 2022. The Council provided its response within 20 working days, on 22 December 2022. It apologised for not escalating the complaint raised on 7 July 2022 to stage one sooner but said it did not consider it handled the matter differently than if it had been logged as a stage one complaint. However, the Council acknowledged it did not handle the transfer of Mrs X’s complaint between departments effectively and recommended that staff would benefit from refresher training.
68. The Council should have escalated Mrs X’s complaint to stage one sooner. Mrs X specified in her email of 7 July 2022 that she wished to make a formal complaint, and therefore, the delay in considering the complaint at stage one of its complaints procedure is fault.
69. Having identified fault, I must consider if this caused an injustice to Mrs X. Mrs X says the Council’s actions caused frustration as a result of the unresolved blockage, and from the Council’s complaint response which apologised for the way she felt rather than for the Council’s actions. Mrs X also says the matter caused her to worry that the blocked gully may lead to flooding, and that the standing water in the gully created an unpleasant smell close to her home.

Back to top

Agreed action

70. To address the injustice identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within one month of the final decision:
1. Provide an apology to Mrs X for the fault identified. The Council’s apology should be in line with our published guidance on remedies which sets out the principles we expect councils to follow when issuing an apology;
2. Make a payment of £100 to Mrs X in recognition of the frustration caused by the delay in following up with the utility company for the period identified;
3. Make a further payment of £100 to Mrs X in recognition of the time and trouble taken in pursuing her complaint, and
4. Provide evidence the Council has agreed to provide complaints handling refresher training to its staff.
71. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

72. We found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to take the above action to resolve this complaint. I have therefore concluded my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman