Summary: Ms X complains about water ingress into her property due to drainage issues which she says action by the Authority could have avoided. We will not investigate the complaint because it is a late complaint and because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Authority sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains her property has been damaged by water ingress which could have been alleviated if the Authority had carried out its duties properly. She says she wants it to issue a Section 25 Notice under the Land Drainage Act 1991 to neighbours and to receive compensation for her costs and stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something an authority has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
5. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant, including the Authority’s response to her complaint.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to Ms X’s complaint. She says she has had extensive conversations with the Authority over a number of years and as she could reasonably have complained to us sooner about these matters, the complaint falls outside our jurisdiction and will not be investigated.
10. Moreover, in its recent consideration of matters, the Authority has explained the drain which runs alongside her property and piping under a road are not maintained by the Authority. It told her it sees no reason to issue a Section 25 Notice and that it will be taking no further action.
11. These are decisions the Authority is entitled to take and it is not our role to review the merits of them. We cannot question decisions taken by authorities if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. There is no evidence to suggest fault affected them.
12. If Ms X wishes to pursue costs and damages from the Authority, it is open to her to take it to court.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is a late complaint and because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Authority sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman