Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Environmental Agency’s decision not to complete maintenance work on a brook on his land. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Environment Agency (EA) has refused to carry out maintenance work on a brook on his land to reduce the risk of flooding. He says the EA has not properly considered the impact on agricultural land.
2. Mr X says this has increased flooding, damaged a bridge used to access his farm. He says this has caused financial loss. He also says restrictions limit the work he can carry out himself.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X said a brook on his land had become silted overtime, which he says has reduced its capacity and increased the risk of flooding to his land. Mr X complains the EA refused to carry out maintenance work on the brook to reduce the risk of flooding.
7. While the EA has powers to carry out relevant works, it is not under a statutory duty to maintain the brook. The EA says it prioritises maintenance work and assesses each location against those priorities. If work at one location would provide less benefit than work elsewhere, it may decide not to carry it out. The EA is entitled to balance the resources needed to address flooding at this location against its other priorities.
8. The evidence shows the EA inspected the site and while it identified progressive silting and vegetation growth. It decided the site did not meet its maintenance priorities because there were limited or no residential properties or EA-maintained assets at risk of flooding. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the EA reached its decision to warrant further investigation.
9. Mr X also complained the EA only considered residential properties and failed to consider the impact on agricultural land.
10. The EA explained its role does not require it to prevent erosion or the loss of agricultural land, and that natural processes cannot be fully prevented. It also explained it prioritises reducing flood risks to homes, businesses and critical infrastructure.
11. The EA explained how it considered the impact on agricultural land when deciding whether to carry out the work. Its inspection identified the effects of flooding and erosion on the land. In this case, it decided the brook did not meet its criteria for intervention. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the EA reached its decision to warrant further investigation.
12. Mr X says it’s unfair that he must pay the Compulsory General Drainage Charges (GDC), while the EA will not carry out maintenance work. He also says the EA places responsibility for maintaining the brook on him but controls the work he can carry out.
13. The EA says the GDC contributes to flood and water management across the wider area. Paying the charge does not give landowners a right to EA-funded works. It says Mr X remains responsible for maintaining the brook, although some works require consent.
14. The EA has provided an explanation of the GDC and why paying it does not mean it must carry out maintenance work on Mr X’s land. It has also explained its regulatory role and why some works require its consent. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the EA’s approach to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman