Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged failure by the Authority to engage with the complainant about ways to improve the accuracy of flood warnings. This is because there is insufficient evidence of the complainant having personally suffered a significant enough injustice to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant (Dr M) complains the Authority has not considered, nor responded, to his requests to meet and address how flood warnings and measurement methods can be made more accurate. In summary, Dr M says the Authority’s current method of assessing flooding is inaccurate which will not address the impacts of flooding generally. As a desired outcome, he wants the Authority to engage with him in a meaningful way over his proposals.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Authority. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. The Ombudsman is only required to accept a complaint where the complainant has been caused a significant and personal injustice because of fault by the Authority. This means Dr M would need to show he has personally suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of the alleged lack of engagement by the Authority over the issues he has raised. As I understand, Dr M worked with the Authority many years ago to develop methods of measuring floods to inform warnings. However, he says the method in recent years has not been used properly and this has caused a number of false flood warnings. His complaint is limited to an alleged lack of engagement by the Authority to address this.
5. I recognise the issues raised by Dr M, but I do not consider he personally has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a result of the Authority’s consideration of his proposals and enquiries. There is also no indication that Dr M has personally suffered recent flooding as a direct result of the Authority’s level of engagement with him. In my view, any injustice does not go above and beyond that suffered by the public generally. There is insufficient evidence of Dr M having personally suffered a significant enough injustice to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

6. I am exercising my general discretion to not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of the complainant having personally suffered a significant enough injustice to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman