Summary: Mr X complained the Internal Drainage Board has not responded to his concerns that he has potentially been incorrectly charged a levy on agricultural land. We found the Internal Drainage Board at fault for how it handled the matter. To remedy the injustice caused the Internal Drainage Board agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment to him for the time and trouble he experienced and provide him with a definitive answer as to whether he has been correctly charged.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Internal Drainage Board has potentially incorrectly charged him for a levy on his land and has not provided an explanation as to why his land is liable for the charge.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have not investigated whether Mr X is liable to pay a charge on his land. This is because the Ombudsman cannot make a finding on whether Mr X’s land meets the definition to be chargeable by the Internal Drainage Board, only a court can. Should Mr X disagree with the Council’s position as to whether his land is chargeable he would need to challenge this through the courts.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. As part of this investigation I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council. I sent a draft of this decision to Mr X and the Internal Drainage Board and considered comments received in response.

Back to top

What I found

7. Internal Drainage Boards (IDB) are independent bodies responsible for land drainage in areas of special drainage need. IDBs undertake works to reduce flood risk to people and property and manage water levels for agricultural and environmental needs within their district. They are established under the Land Drainage Act 1991 and have permissive powers to supervise matters relating to the drainage of land within their districts.
8. The IDB’s powers include making byelaws, taking enforcement action against riparian owners to maintain the flow of a watercourse, and undertaking work to alleviate flooding.
9. The IDB’s complaints procedure says it will acknowledge complaints within three working days and send a written reply within 15 working days of acknowledging the complaint. If this does not resolve the complaint the IDB’s procedure says customers should write to it and let it know why. The IDB will investigate further and, where necessary, a committee of Board members will review the complaint. The IDB will keep the customer informed of progress and provide a further reply within 15 working days of receiving the written request for the complaint to be reviewed.

What happened

10. Mr X has been charged a levy by the IDB on land he purchased over 20 years ago.
11. In June 2023, Mr X queried the assessment of his land for this levy. Mr X said the IDB’s assessment said his land was agricultural. Mr X said since he purchased the land no agricultural activities had taken place on it and it was solely used as his garden.
12. Mr X chased the IDB for a response in July 2023. In mid-July 2023, the IDB responded to Mr X and told him land which was classed as larger than an average garden (i.e. half an acre) was chargeable whether it was agricultural or not.
13. Mr X responded to the IDB in September 2023. Mr X said the law did not say anything about land larger than an average garden being chargeable but just distinguished between land which was agricultural or not. Mr X asked for clarification as to how his land had been considered as agricultural by the IDB.
14. In early December 2023, Mr X made a formal complaint as he had not received a response from the IDB. Mr X sent the IDB a completed complaint form. The IDB sent Mr X an acknowledgement of his complaint five working days later.
15. In March 2024, Mr X contacted the Ombudsman as he had not received any response from the IDB to his complaint. After the Ombudsman contacted the IDB, it explained, in June 2024, it was waiting to receive legal advice on the matter.
16. In July 2024, the IDB explained to the Ombudsman it was still chasing its solicitor for the legal advice.
17. As of September 2023, Mr X said he has still not received a response from the IDB.

Analysis

18. Mr X initially contacted the IDB about whether his land should be chargeable and has yet to receive an answer. This is fault.
19. As a result of not getting a proper response to his concerns about whether his land was chargeable, Mr X made a formal complaint. The IDB did not acknowledge this within three working days and has not provided Mr X with a formal response to his complaint. This is fault. As Mr X received no response to his complaint he contacted the Ombudsman.
20. Since June 2024, the IDB has told the Ombudsman that it could not provide Mr X with a formal response as it was waiting for legal advice. While I recognise it may be appropriate for the IDB to seek legal advice where it needs to, it should have kept Mr X updated about this. This was fault. Further, over three months have passed since the IDB initially said it was waiting for legal advice and Mr X has still not received a definitive answer as to whether he is liable to pay the charge for his land.
21. Had the IDB responded to Mr X’s complaint and kept him updated about what it was doing it may have avoided Mr X complaining to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Agreed action

22. Within one month of my final decision the IDB agreed to carry out the following:
• Apologise to Mr X for the delays in giving him an answer as to whether he should have to pay a charge on his land.
• Pay Mr X £150 for the time and trouble he has experienced in bringing his complaint.
23. Within three months of my final decision the IDB agreed to:
• Provide Mr X with a definitive answer about whether his land is chargeable.
24. The Authority should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I have completed my investigation and found there was fault by the IDB which has caused Mr X injustice. The IDB has agreed to the above actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman