Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about drainage concerns. There is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council investigated Mr X’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council did not act when asked to correct changes to an access road.
2. Mr X said the changes impacted the water course.
3. Mr X wants the Council to complete a further site visit, consider enforcement action to make changes and maintain a consistent approach for residents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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))
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Changes were made to a watercourse by a private landowner in 2023. Mr X said that flooding occurred on neighbouring properties because of the changes. The properties are on an unadopted street. The Council generally has no obligation to carry out repairs on an unadopted street, responsibility lies with the property owners on that road.
9. The Council can require landowners to maintain drainage channels, gutters, or pipes to prevent water flowing onto the highway under the Highways Act 1980 s163. The Councils powers do not typically extend to private roads or purely private land drainage issues.
10. Mr X contacted the Council with concerns about the changes to the watercourse. The Council completed a site visit. As part of the site visit, a review of the land and surrounding properties on the water course was completed. After the visit an investigation report was completed. The report identified possible flood risks and gave recommendations to the landowners how to manage the risks.
11. Mr X said the Council failed to ensure that unauthorised alterations had been corrected and made a complaint to the Council. In its response to Mr X, the Council acknowledged the changes were unauthorised. It sought advice and concluded the works would likely have been approved if the landowner had applied for authorisation beforehand. The Council said it was satisfied with the standard of the changes in place.
12. Mr X complained the Council ignored his requests to enforce the landowner to make changes to the watercourse and access road. In its response to Mr X. the Council said enforcement would not be pursued as consent for changes would likely have been granted. There is no evidence to suggest that the Council had had not considered Mr X’s requests about enforcement.
13. Mr X said the Council applied different standards in how the landowners should maintain the watercourse. In its complaint response, the Council told Mr X it had considered watercourse changes on a case-by-case basis. The Council said it had reviewed an application for a watercourse change and offered advice, then it had separately considered an enforcement decision for work already undertaken.
14. Mr X wanted the Council to attend for a further site visit and that enforcement is considered. After it completed its review, the Council decided that enforcement was not the appropriate decision.
15. We are 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.
16. I have considered the steps the organisation took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding to not take enforcement action. There is no fault in how it took the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman