Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about drainage because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained the Council:
• failed to act to ensure testing of a private water supply;
• gave incorrect information about the potential risk of water quality on residents; and
• served legal notices to her and other residents about the water supply, when she was not responsible.
2. Miss Y says the issues have caused her worry, she had been drinking unsafe water and there was a problem with the borehole supplying her property. She says she has incurred legal expenses because of the Council’s inaction and inappropriate handling of the situation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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)
5. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information Miss Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss Y complained the Council delayed or failed to act promptly to ensure testing of her private water supply. The Council’s complaint response outlines the action it took after initial contact about the matter in March 2024. This included consideration of water supply test results Miss Y privately obtained and shared with the Council.
8. The Council acted on the information received to carry out a new risk assessment, liaised with involved parties and carried out its own testing. It then issued notices to relevant persons. It acted on the level of risk it deemed, in its professional opinion, the matter to be to the public health in order to balance its use of resources.
9. The Council’s actions do not suggest there was any avoidable delay or inaction from the time it received initial concerns. It appears to have been actively working on the matter and Miss Y’s private testing has helped inform its approach.
10. Miss Y also complained the Council gave her incorrect information about the potential risk of the water quality. The Council has accepted it might have caused confusion and could have been clearer in earlier communication. It has apologised and taken action to review its practices to ensure clear information is given to the general public in future.
11. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would be able to add to the Council’s investigation and response(s). The Council has already offered to review its practices, which is one of the outcomes Miss Y wanted.
12. Miss Y also complained the Council incorrectly served legal notices to her and other residents about the water supply. The Council has explained it issued the notices to all potentially responsible persons about the water supply issue and then revoked these when it became clear who was responsible.
13. The Council explained it took this approach to ensure the notice was issued and acted on promptly. This was based on legal advice and professional judgement on the most effective and appropriate action in the circumstances. The Ombudsman cannot criticise the professional judgement of the Council’s officers or intervene to substitute an alternative view.
14. Miss Y believes the Council has been negligent and significant legal resources have been used as a result. We cannot determine liability claims for negligence. These may only be determined by insurers or the courts. Consequently, any claim for damages, such as costs for water testing or legal advice are matters more appropriately dealt with by the courts and insurers.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman