Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to repair a blocked drain over a prolonged period. We have found the Council acted in accordance with its published policy on drain maintenance. We have not therefore found the Council acted with fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to repair a blocked drain over a prolonged period. Mr X said the Council recognised the problem and proposed a way to address it, but could not confirm when this would happen. Mr X said when the drain overflowed, it caused flooding on the road, affecting vehicle access to his home.

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Council’s drainage maintenance programme

7. The Council publishes information on its website, setting out its approach to drainage maintenance. It says it has a high number of gullies and drains in its district. The Council says adverse weather can cause the drainage network to become overwhelmed, leading to flooded roads.
8. The Council says it undertakes a planned schedule of maintenance and clearances yearly, while reactively responding to reported blocked drains causing standing water or highway obstructions.
9. In cases of standing water, the Council says it will act when:
• the water is standing on a road 24 hours after rainfall has stopped; and
• the standing water is on a road with a 40mph speed limit, where road users are likely to travel at that speed.
10. The Council says in cases of highway obstruction due to flooding, it will act when:
• The road is impassable;
• Vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians are forced away from the nearside of the highway by more than a metre; and
• Vehicles have to cross the centreline marking.

Back to top

What I found

Key events

11. Below is a summary of the relevant key events. It does not detail every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “analysis” section of this decision statement.
12. In March 2025, Mr X called the Council to complain about the drain. According to the Council’s notes, the drain and road were not flooded at the time of the report. However, Mr X raised concerns that during poor weather, the drain flooded quickly, and this had been happening for over 18 months.
13. In April 2025, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. The Council told Mr X:
• It had cleared the drain in December 2024 but, due to its design, the Council could not fully access parts of the drain.
• The Council said it would arrange for specialist clearing of the drain, though it had around 300 other sites to attend to already and some of these would need to take priority.
• The Council also said part of the drain structure was not listed on its records and may not be its responsibility to maintain. It intended to clear the drain, map the location properly, and identify who was responsible for ongoing maintenance.
14. Between May and June 2025, Mr X sought updates from the Council. In late June 2025, the Council told Mr X it did not have a new update. It said it still had more than 300 sites to attend to, completing the works on a strict rota basis. The Council said it would provide an update once it had been able to attend to the drain.
15. Mr X referred his complaint to the Ombudsman and continued to seek updates from the Council. In August 2025, the Council told Mr X it could not add to its previous responses and would not provide further updates.

Analysis

Did the Council act with fault?

16. Paragraphs 7-10 set out the Council’s policy for planned drain maintenance, and its response times for responding to reactive maintenance issues that meet the published criteria. In assessing whether the Council acted with fault, I have considered three specific points:
• Whether the Council had inspected the drain within the previous year;
• Whether Mr X’s complaint warranted reactive intervention, under the Council’s published policy; and
• Whether, in that context, the Council was at fault for being unable to say when it would inspect the site.
17. On the first point, the Council confirmed to Mr X it had inspected and cleared the drain in December 2024. The Council had therefore inspected and cleared the drain less than 12 months before Mr X’s complaint. I have not therefore found the Council at fault for failing to inspect the drain in line with its published schedule.
18. On the second point, Mr X’s complaint was the drain often became blocked in wet weather. Mr X was concerned about potential future disruption if the Council did not act. The Council’s published criteria set out the circumstances in which it responds reactively. Specifically, the Council acts when standing water is present more than 24 hours after rainfall, or where a highway obstruction meets the stated criteria.
19. I understand when Mr X complained, the drain was not blocked, with the road not being flooded and standing water not being present. I also understand flooding did not occur throughout the period Mr X sought updates from the Council. This being the case, the Council had no obligation, under its policy, to attend at the time. I have not found the Council at fault for not prioritising Mr X’s report for attendance.
20. On the third point, this is closely related to the second. Without Mr X’s report meeting the criteria for attendance, I have not found the Council at fault for being unable to say when it would attend. It would be preferable if the Council could set out timescales in such situations and I appreciate Mr X’s frustration. However, it is for the Council to implement policies that make the most effective use of its resources. The Council said it had more than 300 sites already prioritised for attendance. It is also likely the Council would have to reactively respond to other reports meeting the published criteria, while balancing this scheduled maintenance. If the Council has acted in accordance with its published policy, the Ombudsman would not find fault.
21. The Council publishes a live interactive map on its website, setting out when it most recently completed maintenance checks to the drains in its district. At the time of writing, the map shows the Council last completed a visit to the drains in question in late August 2025. While not a formal recommendation, the Council may wish to provide Mr X with an update on its efforts to address his concerns, and to establish responsibility for maintenance. It would also be open to Mr X to report any changes in circumstances to the Council, and for the Council to assess these reports against its published criteria to decide the proper response.

Back to top

Decision

22. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman