Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of the Property Flood Resilience Grant process, or its decision not to complete maintenance work on a culvert. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify the Ombudsman’s involvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council delayed processing a Property Flood Resilience (PFR) grant following her property flooding. She said it took around 13 months to complete and was difficult to coordinate.
2. She said a culvert could not cope with the volume of water and may have contributed to the flooding of her property. She said the Council decided not to carry out maintenance work on the culvert which put her property at risk of future flooding. She wants the Council to maintain the culvert.

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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X complained about delayed communication from the Council and the PFR grant process. Miss X contacted the Council at the start of 2024 after her property flooded. She said she sent an application for a PFR grant and asked for help around a culvert she believed contributed to the flooding.
7. The Council accepted there were initial delays in contacting Miss X and apologised. The Council also accepted there were inaccuracies in the initial PFR report which it corrected and reissued.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council accepted there were delays in its communication with Miss X and apologised for the error in its initial PFR report. It also confirmed Miss X was awarded the £5000 PFR grant. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
9. In its complaint response the Council also explained to Miss X its role in managing flood risk and investigating flooding incidents. It said its role could not prevent all flooding due to extreme weather events such as Storm Henk. It said the flooding of Miss X’s property was due to extreme weather and not due to the failure of Culvert A or B.
10. Following the flooding the Council inspected the watercourse and later undertook upstream and downstream inspections. It delayed a condition inspection of Culvert A due to high water levels, but it was later assessed as satisfactory. The Council said it planned to replace Culvert B.
11. The Council explained the investigations it completed in response to the flood and the reasons for its decisions. It said Culvert A was satisfactory and it planned to replace Culvert B. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify the Ombudsman’s involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman