Summary: Mrs C complains the Council will not complete remodelling work to update the surface water flood risk for her property which has affected her home insurance. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs C, complains the Council will not complete remodelling work to update the surface water flood risk for her property.
2. Mrs C says because of the Council’s fault, her home insurance premiums have increased significantly and other insurance companies have refused to insure the property which she is concerned will affect her ability to sell her property in the future.

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. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I read the papers provided by Mrs C and discussed the complaint with her. I have considered some information from the Council and provided a copy of this to Mrs C. I have explained my draft decision to Mrs C and the Council and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. The Environment Agency produced a national scale surface water flood risk map in 2008, as a recommendation from the Pitt Review into the widespread flooding that occurred across the country in 2007. This data was updated in 2010, using newer modelling techniques.
8. Since 2013 Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) have been responsible for any updates or improvements to this mapping data for their individual areas. The LLFA is the County Council in Mrs C’s area.
9. LLFAs must follow the required technical guidance provided by the Authority to ensure data quality and compatibility with its main collated dataset. The Authority will check new data against the technical criteria and once it has been quality assured it will upload the data to its website which are completed by scheduled bulk updates. The new data once uploaded to the Authority’s website will display for property searches on its Long Term Flood Risk web pages.
10. The Authority data was updated in 2013 to incorporate information from LLFAs to improve its accuracy (where provided). There have been no further updates to the national dataset since 2013, unless a LLFA has provided new local data to the Authority.
11. Property insurers choose whether they want to use the Authority’s data to inform their decision making. They also use other data, including any that the customer may be able to provide. Insurers will then make an assessment as to whether they can provide insurance cover and under what terms.

Key events

12. The Council says the Environment Agency (the Authority) referred Mrs C to it in line with the protocol of referring any surface water related questions to the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA). Mrs C complained her property was incorrectly recorded as being at risk of flooding.
13. The Council discussed the issue with Mrs C and contacted the Authority about the matter.
14. The Council explained that the data, modelling and maps were the Authority’s and confirmed it had not submitted any requests to the Authority for changes or published any maps through the national flood risk mapping service.
15. The Council says it has generally found the surface water flood risk maps to be reliable and accurate enough for the purposes of discharging its duties under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and Land Drainage Act 1991.
16. The Council notes the maps provide a modelled assessment of the level of risk to an area and are not a record of previous flood events. The Council further says the maps are a topographical based assessment and use an overall assumed factor for the existence of positive drainage (street gullies and sewers) in urban and suburban areas. The models produced do not consider individual drainage assets or detailed assessments of individual roads and properties. As such, the models are not designed to predict exact flood extents on a property level basis. Any new modelling would require a reassessment of the entire upstream catchment and detailed modelling of the assets within that catchment to provide a more accurate map than that currently produced.
17. To provide some context, the Council has explained it did supply additional modelling to the Authority about the ‘Rive Ditch’ in Woking which is one of the areas of highest flood risk in the county with multiple historic flood events. The Council says the main reason for completing this modelling was to reassess the river network and existing sewers to inform future flood risk management works rather changing the flood map. The Council notes this project took five years to complete and for it to be accepted as accurate enough to count as a valid change to the presented data.
18. The Council says it only commissions modelling as part of a capital flood defence scheme so that it has enough information to decide if the scheme is financially viable, to assess options and ensure that any actions taken do not increase risk to existing properties or infrastructure.
19. The Council says it would not agree a request to commission remodelling to update the surface water flood risk for an individual property unless it was carried out as part of developing a wider flood defence scheme. The Council says it is not funded to carry out modelling in isolation to serve a particular property. It also notes the limited likelihood of maps being changed as a result of such work given the technical requirements of the Authority to ensure any proposed maps were of sufficient confidence, accuracy and resolution to replace the existing maps.
20. The Council has confirmed it has not accepted any individual requests to amend the modelling to date but did send details of a particular culvert to the Authority at a resident’s request. As the model does not include assets at this level of detail the provision of this information did not result in any change.
21. The Council has advised that the Authority informed all LLFAs it would carry out the next round of updates to ensure a consistent approach across the country and that as the Strategic Overview body they were best placed to do this.
22. The Authority has confirmed to the Ombudsman that it is currently working on a new mapping product which is due to be published in 2024. This will update the current Risk of Flooding from Surface Water map and the Risk of Flooding from Rivers and the Sea map. There will not be any national scale updates to the Risk of Flooding from Surface Water map before 2024.
23. The Council has provided cogent reasons for its decision not to commission remodelling to update the surface water flood risk for Mrs C’s individual property. This is a decision the Council is entitled to reach.

Back to top

Final decision

24. I have completed my investigation as I have found no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman