Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, which concerns the Council’s handling of enquiries the complainant made about flooding. This because the Council has now answered the complainant’s questions, and there is nothing meaningful to be gained by further investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr J.
2. Mr J complains the Council did not give him a timely response to a letter he sent, posing several questions about a recent flooding incident and the Council’s investigation of it. He also complains the Council did not give him a copy of its complaints procedure, despite repeated requests.

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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or that there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr J 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. In January 2025, following a storm, there was flooding in Mr J’s area. He believes this was caused by an inadequate or malfunctioning drainage system serving a nearby new-build estate.
7. In February, Mr J wrote a letter to the Council, in its role as lead local flood authority (LLFA). He posed a series of questions about the drainage system, how the Council had investigated the flooding and what steps it was taking to prevent a repeat, and about how it intended to ensure a proposed extension of the estate would not put further unsustainable pressure on the drainage system.
8. Mr J chased the Council for a response to his questions over the following months. During that time he also asked, on several occasions, for a copy of the Council’s complaint procedure, but says he did not receive a response to this either. In May, Mr J submitted a stage 1 complaint, highlighting his dissatisfaction with the Council’s handling of his queries.
9. The Council responded in June. It explained it had been under significant pressure over the previous months because of widespread flooding in the area, and had prioritised supporting people who had suffered internal flooding in their properties. It provided an answer to Mr J’s specific questions about the flooding in his area, explaining it was working with the local planning authority (LPA, which is a different local authority in this area) and the estate developer to identify any issues with the drainage system, and that it was waiting to be consulted by the LPA on the proposed extension to the estate.
10. In July Mr J escalated his complaint to stage 2. He said the Council’s response did not address its failure to respond to his letter, and that important details were missing from its answer to his questions. He also said it did not address his repeated requests for a copy of the Council’s complaint procedure.
11. The Council responded in August. It said it was satisfied with the explanation it had given for the delay in its response to Mr J’s original letter, and provided more details and updates to address his specific questions. The Council explained it was for the LPA, not the Council, to answer some of his questions about the drainage system and the new planning application. It also explained the complaint procedure was available on its website.
12. In November Mr J referred his complaint to the Ombudsman. He criticised the Council for not adhering to its “Customer Service Standards” and for not providing adequate responses to his questions. Mr J explained he was concerned about the possibility of further flood events and that he did not feel reassured about this by the Council’s failure to deal with his questions properly.

Back to top

Analysis

13. Mr J sent his original letter to the Council in February. I have not seen a copy of the correspondence between then and his formal complaint in May, but the Council’s response to the complaint appears to accept it had not answered his letter substantively before then.
14. Mr J says this breaches the Council’s customer service standards. However, it is not clear what Mr J is referring to here. It does not appear the Council has published any policy setting out a target date for dealing with general enquiries, of the type Mr J sent in his original letter.
15. It may be that Mr J is referring to the Council’s published targets for dealing with complaints; but his original letter was not a complaint, and so these targets did not apply. I acknowledge, separately, that the Council did then exceed its target dates for responding to Mr J’s formal complaints, but only by 2 days at stage 1 and 12 at stage 2, which I do not consider significant enough to justify further investigation.
16. In the general sense, I agree it would have been better if the Council had responded to Mr J’s letter sooner than June, and without him having to make a formal complaint about it. Equally though, I find the Council’s explanation for this delay compelling – the widespread flooding had placed serious pressure on the Council, and it had prioritised dealing with people who had suffered internal flooding at their properties (which, as I understand it, Mr J had not).
17. Ultimately, I do not consider there is anything worthwhile to be gained by further investigation of Mr J’s complaint. While it took a long time, the Council has now given him a comprehensive response to his original questions, which includes an explanation that several points do not fall into its jurisdiction anyway. It has not left Mr J in any different a position than he would have been, had it answered the letter more promptly, and while I appreciate he has suffered a degree of frustration at the time it took, I am satisfied the Council has given a reasonable explanation for this.
18. I acknowledge Mr J remains unconvinced by the Council’s answers, but I am only able to consider Mr J’s actual complaint to the Council and Ombudsman, which was simply about the failure to respond to his letter. Any complaint he has about the technical competency of the Council’s investigation into the flooding is a different matter, about which Mr J would need to make a separate, specific complaint.
19. Mr J also complains the Council did not provide a copy of its complaint procedure upon his request. While, again, it would have been better if the Council had done this, the procedure is clearly published on its website and easily accessible. Mr J has not suggested he has any difficulty accessing or using the internet, and he was evidently able to make a complaint anyway, so, again, I do not consider there is sufficient injustice to warrant investigation of this point.

Back to top

Decision

20. I have discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman