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

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to review incorrect surface flood data which includes Mr Y’s property in a high risk of flooding area. Mr Y says this has caused him severe anxiety and has threatened the sale of his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr Y is unhappy with the high flood risk rating on his property, which he says he is currently in the process of selling. Mr Y says he lives on a hill and his neighbours have a very low risk, but his property is shown as being at high risk. He feels this is incorrect and asked the Council to recommend to the Environment Agency that it change the rating.
6. The Council’s complaint response shows it has liaised with relevant officers in its organisation before responding. It explained that it cannot accept Mr Y’s anecdotal evidence and has explained what evidence Mr Y would need to provide in order for the Council to make a recommendation to the Environment Agency that it change the property’s rating.
7. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
8. In this case, the Council has considered the information Mr Y has provided, government guidance on the risk map and explained that it cannot use this alone to make the recommendation. It has given relevant guidance on how Mr Y may be able to seek changes in the map and how this can be obtained. As the Council has been able to explain its position and has referred to relevant guidance when making this decision, there is not enough evidence of fault in the decision-making process to justify investigation. We will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr 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