Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions following Mr X’s report of flooding in his garden. We have not seen enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to properly investigate his report of flooding in his garden due to his neighbour’s defective drains.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X reported flooding in his garden. The Council confirms an Environmental Health Officer (EHO) visited his property. The EHO confirmed she observed water pooling in Mr X’s garden. This was clear water with no evidence of sewage. The Council says the EHO also heard a hissing sound and decided this was likely a water leak. The matter was referred to the local water company which has some responsibility under the Water Industry Act 1991 to fix leaks.
6. The EHO and another officer returned to Mr X’s home about three weeks later. They confirmed no water at his home and clear water noted in the neighbour’s garden. The hissing noise had stopped and the water was not running.
7. The EHO placed dye in the nearest wastewater drain at the neighbour’s property. The drain was not found to be defective nor overflowing.
8. The Council also confirmed another EHO visited the neighbour’s property and could not see any obvious sign of drainage issues.
9. Mr X is not satisfied with the Council’s actions. He says the water in his garden is foul water which is causing a health hazard and preventing him from using his garden.
10. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
11. In this case the Council sent a suitably qualified officer to inspect Mr X’s property. Having noted clear water in Mr X’s garden with no odour or other evidence of foul water, the officer decided the water was from a leak from the clean water supply and referred the matter to the local water company.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X ’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. Mr X could seek a civil remedy in the courts if he believes the neighbours drain is causing a statutory nuisance.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman