Summary: There was no fault by the Council, in its decision that a landowner’s work to a watercourse was not responsible for subsequent flooding, and its consequent decision not to take enforcement action against the landowner for this. We have therefore completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainants as Mr and Mrs P. Mr and Mrs P are represented in their complaint by their relatives, Mr and Mrs G.
2. Mr and Mrs P complain the Council has not properly investigated and taken enforcement action to address changes made to a watercourse by a landowner, whom they believe to be responsible for two floods which affected their property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 s34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr and Mrs G and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr and Mrs P live in a village in the Council’s area. To the immediate east of the village there is an area of land owned by a private landowner, which include ditches for draining surface water. The ditches feed water into a culverted watercourse, which runs underneath the village and then discharges to the west, into a nearby river.
7. In 2024, following an episode of heavy rain, the village flooded. The flood particularly affected Mr and Mrs P’s property because of the village’s topography. There was a second, similar flood in 2025, which also particularly affected Mr and Mrs P’s property. Mr and Mrs G believe the floods occurred because the landowner had carried out work to the ditches on their land, increasing the flow rate of the water, and causing it to back up and overflow at the junction with the culvert.
8. In May 2025 Mr G submitted a stage 1 complaint to the Council. He said he had written to a senior council officer about the flooding in March, but had not received a reply until May, despite chasing it. Mr G complained the reply, once he had received it, was inadequate and did not address the concerns he had raised, saying merely that there was ongoing investigation and that the Council would provide a further update in the near future.
9. The Council responded in June. It explained there had been widespread flooding across the Council’s area, requiring significant investigation, and that this meant it could not always provide the level of individual support it would like. However, the Council noted it had been in contact with Mr G several times previously, and did not believe it could add to the information it had already given him.
10. The Council explained that, while it had powers of enforcement to address an obstruction to a watercourse, these were not mandatory duties, and it was for the Council to decide on a case-by-case basis whether to use them. It noted Mr G’s rationale for his theory the landowner’s work had caused the flooding, but said it had no power of enforcement because there was no evidence it had impeded the flow of water. The Council said Mr and Mrs P would need to take civil legal action against the landowner, if they believed the work had increased the risk of flooding to their property, but that the Council could not support this because it did not have the power or resources to do so.
11. The Council noted the parish council had commissioned a report from a drainage consultant in January 2025, but said it had not seen the report. It said it could not comment on the condition of the culvert near a property on the west side of the village, but explained it was the responsibility of that property owner to maintain under their riparian duties. The Council explained it did not have a duty to protect all properties from flooding, and it was actually the duty of individual homeowners to protect their properties.
12. However, the Council said it was seeking funding to carry out some works, on a goodwill basis, to improve the capacity of the drainage system and reduce the risk of future flooding. It explained it was currently assessing the feasibility of this project.
13. Mr G submitted a stage 2 complaint in July. He said the landowner had carried out unpermitted work to the watercourse in 2023, which included widening and deepening the ditches and installing pipes. Mr G said this had increased the volume of water in the ditches but restricted the flow rate, and that this work had been carried out without receiving permission from the Council, but it had taken no action to enforce against it.
14. Mr G said there had been no history of flooding before the landowner’s work. He explained the technical reasons why he believed the work was responsible for the flooding, and that this was supported by a report from an internal drainage board (IDB). He said his parents’ mental health had deteriorated in the aftermath of the two floods, which had caused a significant decrease in the value of their property.
15. Mr G asked the Council to carry out an investigation into the landowner’s works and take action to return the watercourse to its original state.
16. The Council responded in August. It said Mr G had not raised any points it had not already addressed in its previous response, but reiterated that:

• there was no evidence to show the landowner’s work was the cause of the flooding, and it would cost a considerable amount of money to commission proper surveys and modelling;
• it was not the Council’s responsibility to protect individual homeowners from flooding;
• it was currently seeking funding to carry out some improvement works on a goodwill basis.

17. The Council also explained it was concerned with the volume and dispersed nature of the correspondence it was receiving from Mr G and his family. It explained its policy allowed it to impose restrictions a person’s ability to contact the Council, if it considered their behaviour to be unreasonable, and warned it may decide to do so in this case.
18. In October Mr and Mrs G referred the complaint to the Ombudsman.
19. Following Mr and Mrs G’s complaint, in April the Council wrote to us to confirm it had recently completed a programme of work to divert excess water from the drainage system, and allow it to discharge to the west of the village, at a cost of approximately £48,000. The Council reiterated this work was a goodwill gesture.

Back to top

Legislative background

Section 25 of the Land Drainage Act 1991

20. Section 25 of the 1991 Act gives a local authority, acting as the lead local flood authority, permissive powers to deal with ordinary watercourses where the proper flow of water is impeded. The authority may serve notice on a person responsible for the condition of the watercourse, including an owner, occupier or person in control of adjoining land, requiring works to restore the flow.
21. Any notice must explain the works required, the timescale for completion and the recipient’s right of appeal to the magistrates’ court. The Act does not impose a duty on the authority to take enforcement action in every case. Authorities are generally expected to consider the wider flood risk, the evidence available and whether informal resolution is appropriate before using formal powers.
22. Where a person fails to comply with a notice, the authority may carry out the works itself and seek recovery of its reasonable costs. Failure to comply may also amount to a criminal offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine. In practice, councils usually describe these powers as a last resort, to be used where voluntary cooperation has not resolved the issue or where there is a significant risk of flooding or damage.

Back to top

Analysis

23. The Ombudsman’s role is to review the way a council has made its decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or unduly delayed making a decision. We call this ‘fault’ and, where we find it, we can consider the impact of the fault and ask the council in question to address this.
24. But we do not make operational or policy decisions on a council’s behalf, or provide a right of appeal against its decisions. If we find a council has acted without fault, then we cannot criticise it, even if the complainant feels strongly it has made the wrong decision. We do not uphold a complaint simply because a person disagrees with something a council has done.
25. In this case, therefore, that means it is not for me to draw my own conclusion about the reason for the flooding, or decide whether the Council should use its enforcement powers to tackle it.
26. I asked the Council to explain precisely what investigation it had carried out of the landowner’s work, and its rationale for concluding there was no evidence it was responsible for the floods. The Council replied:

“In June 2025, following the flooding event, Council Officers met with a representative of the Parish Council on [street name], and undertook a visual inspection of land drainage assets in the area. During the inspection, there was no evidence that the landowner had carried out alterations to the open watercourses which would have increased natural flows. This was an informal meeting and site walkover; no formal reports or surveys were produced at that time.”

27. The Council went on to describe the catchment area for the drainage system, and explained there is a significant and unrestricted flow of water during periods of heavy rainfall. It continued:
28. “In 2016, the Council arranged, on a goodwill basis, for sections of the riparian-owned culverted watercourses within the village to be cleansed and CCTV surveyed following concerns raised by the Parish Council. At that time, to the east of [street name], the inlet… comprised twin 150mm diameter pipes, which were clear and running freely. These discharged into a single 225mm diameter pipe which crossed [street name].

“Historically, this section was an open watercourse with unrestricted flows discharging into the 225mm diameter pipe which crossed [street name]. It is understood that the twin 150mm diameter pipes were replaced by a 300mm diameter pipe, which would be more in line with the original capacity of the open watercourse. While the Council has not commissioned a specialist consultant to hydraulically model the catchment in order compare flow rates, capacity and flood risk of the 300mm diameter pipe against the twin 150mm diameter pipes and against the original open watercourse, it does not consider that the installation of the 300mm pipe has exacerbated the extent of flooding downstream.”

“This assessment is based on the Council’s understanding of the flood event, the area and contours of the catchment and anecdotal evidence from the Parish Council, who confirmed that the open watercourses upstream were full, including the section directly upstream of the 300mm pipe … and the adjacent property’s garden, as well as other adjacent land were flooded during the event.”

29. The Council also explained the parish council had arranged for the culverted watercourse to be jetted and surveyed, which had showed some sections were significantly obstructed by the ingress of tree roots.
30. I acknowledge Mr and Mrs G’s reasons for believing the floods have been caused by the landowner’s work on the ditches to the east of the village, and their view the Council should take enforcement action to return this watercourse to its original state. Although I have no way of verifying the village had never flooded before the landowner’s work, if this is true, then it is logical to infer a causal relationship between the two.
31. But, equally, this is not irrefutable proof the landowner’s work is responsible for the floods, and the possibility remains it is coincidental. The Council is entitled to draw the conclusion it has, and, in coming to that conclusion I am satisfied it has taken the proper steps to investigate. There is no evidence of fault here that would permit me to criticise it.
32. It follows, therefore, there is also no fault in the Council’s decision it would not be proportionate to take enforcement action against the landowner, using its powers under the Land Drainage Act. As I have noted, these powers are discretionary, which means it is for the Council to decide whether it is appropriate to use them in a particular case.
33. I consider it is also relevant to note the Council has spent a significant amount of money on carrying out improvements to the drainage system in the village, in a bid to forestall any further flooding incidents. I appreciate Mr and Mrs G feel the root cause of the floods lies elsewhere, but this demonstrates, at least, a clear commitment by the Council to resolve the flooding. It cannot reasonably be accused of disinterest in this matter.
34. In their complaint to the Ombudsman, Mr and Mrs G have also highlighted their dissatisfaction with the Council’s suggestion it might impose its unreasonable behaviour policy. The Council said this was due to the volume of their correspondence, that they keep contacting different council departments (a “scattergun” approach), and because they have made repeated complaints which are largely the same in nature.
35. The Council is entitled to invoke this policy where it considers it appropriate. It is not for the Ombudsman to decide, on the Council’s behalf, at what point it should become applicable, and so I cannot make any judgement of my own whether the volume and nature of Mr and Mrs G’s correspondence is unreasonable. Given, especially, the Council has merely warned them about this, and not imposed any actual restrictions, it would not be proportionate to investigate, because it is very unlikely such an investigation would produce a different outcome.

Back to top

Decision

36. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman