Summary: Mrs C complains the Environment Agency wrongly designated her property as being at high risk of flooding which has affected her home insurance. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault by the Environment Agency.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs C, complains the Environment Agency (the Authority) has wrongly designated her property as being at high risk of flooding. In particular, Mrs C says the Authority information from 2013 is out of date and it has also not consistently applied the 20 metre buffer when a property is near an area at risk of surface water flooding.
2. Mrs C says because of the Authority’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 an authority’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 an authority’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 Authority and provided a copy of this to Mrs C. I have explained my draft decision to Mrs C and the Authority and considered the comments received before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

7. The Authority is the principal flood risk management authority in England and Wales. It is responsible for, amongst other things, forecasting and mapping flood risk. The Flood Risk Regulations 2009 require the Authority to produce and review a flood risk map for England.
8. The Authority also 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The Authority changed the name of its mapping product to the Risk of Flooding from Surface Water map in 2016.
13. 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 or which they may purchase from other suppliers. Insurers will then make an assessment as to whether they can provide insurance cover and under what terms. The Authority has no influence over insurance providers nor any responsibility to regulate the cover they provide or prices they charge.

Key events

14. Mrs C contacted the Authority in August 2019 as she believed a recent change to its flood data had affected her property insurance and ability to sell. Mrs C telephoned the Authority in November to formally complain as she was not happy with the Authority’s response.
15. The Authority acknowledged Mrs C’s complaint and discussed it with her during November. The Authority provided a detailed response at the beginning of December. This confirmed that when the flood risk of Mrs C’s property was viewed on the Long Term Flood Risk map, it stated the property was ‘in or near a flood risk area’. The explanatory text says the risk of flooding from rivers was very low but the risk of flooding from surface water was high.
16. The Authority explained that although Mrs C’s property was not shown on the map as within a surface water flood risk area it was within 20 metres of one. The Authority advised that surface water flood risk maps were not normally accurate enough to use at an individual property level to predict where flooding may occur and were intended to be used at street or community level to identify wider areas at risk. For this reason, the Long Term Flood Risk map reported the highest risk from surface water within 20 metres of a specified location to give a general indication of likely risk at property level. The Authority confirmed that both the flood risk map and explanatory text were correct.
17. The Authority went on to explain that it was no longer responsible for updates to the data used to produce the surface water flood risk map and LLFAs had been responsible for any updates or improvements since 2013. The Authority had contacted the relevant LLFA who had confirmed it had not updated their surface water flood risk mapping since the Authority’s original 2013 information and had no plans to do so. The Authority explained any change to the surface water flood risk map would require new modelling which would need to be commissioned by the LLFA or through a third party’s consultant for review by the LLFA.
18. The Authority confirmed that the only recent change to the flood risk mapping in Mrs C’s area had been an update to the Flood Map for Planning in October 2019 with new modelling data for the River Ash. This new data had resulted in new areas of Flood Zone 2 being created to represent the extent of an extreme flood from the River Ash more accurately. Mrs C’s property was within the updated Flood Zone 2 which represented an annual probability of flooding between 1% and 0.1%. The Authority explained the Flood Map for Planning was primarily used in the spatial planning and development process to help ensure proposed developments were appropriate, in terms of flood risk, for their location. The Authority confirmed the data from the new modelling would be used to update the Long Term Flood Risk map and associated risk ratings for Flood Risk from Rivers. The Authority also explained that there were pre-set dates about every quarter when it could make changes to the Long Term Flood Risk map and the updated map was likely to be on its website in March 2020. The Authority has confirmed the outputs from this modelling have not yet been uploaded to its website (Long Term Flood Risk pages) as further quality assurance work is required. This is the Authority’s data (as is all mapping/modelling for flood risk from main rivers). The updated Flood Map for Planning is not related to the Risk of Flooding from Surface Water map and so will not affect the risk attributed from surface water.
19. The Authority noted the raw Flood Zone 2 data would have been available to insurance companies though the Government’s Open Data website for them to update their own mapping systems once the mapping data was live on the Authority’s website. The Authority advised that insurance companies could update their own flood risk data at any time irrespective of when the Authority data was updated. The Authority confirmed the mapping for flood risk from surface water and reservoirs had not changed that year in Mrs C’s area. The Authority would not be aware of whether the cost of Mrs C’s insurance had risen as a result of the update to Flood Zone 2 and this would be a matter for her to clarify with her insurance provider. The Authority suggested Mrs C could contact the National Flood Forum C to seek further independent advice.
20. In its response to the Ombudsman, the Authority highlighted that early versions of its flood maps were intended to be mainly used for spatial planning purposes to inform development decisions. Over time and through the growing use of the maps on its website by individual property owners it recognised the need to define risk more clearly. There was a resulting change in flood risk categories in 2013 at the same time as the mapping data was updated. The Authority says the categories have not changed since 2013. However, the Authority has made improvements to the presentation of its website since 2013 to make it easier to search for a property and allow flood risk from multiple sources to be displayed on the same map. It has also allowed predicted flood depth and velocity to be viewed on the map where previously only predicted flood extents had been available.
21. The Authority has confirmed that apart from periodic improvements to how the maps are presented and search facilities there has been no other changes to the underlying data in Mrs C’s area and no changes to the predicted surface water flood extents at Mrs C’s property.
22. The Authority has confirmed to the Ombudsman that it has reviewed the Flood Risk from Surface Water map both on its internal mapping systems and on its public facing website and the data on both systems is the same.
23. The Authority says without new modelling for Mrs C’s area it is not possible to say whether the current map is a realistic representation of possible flood extents which is one of the reasons for applying a 20 metre buffer to this data. However, the Authority has confirmed the risk rating applied to Mrs C’s property is correct as the address-point for her property (in the GIS mapping software) is within 20 metres of an area of high risk. The Authority says it has applied the associated risk ratings consistently.
24. The Authority has further checked Mrs C’s property and its distance from the closest area of high risk surface water flooding. The Authority has provided a map extract and marked a 20 metre radius around the property’s address-point and an area of high risk falls within this radius. The radius was drawn using a specific measuring tool in the Authority’s mapping software. The Authority says Mrs C did not provide it with the other specific addresses she has checked and considers are being treated inconsistently with regards the application of the 20 metre buffer. However, the Authority has confirmed it is happy to check the specific properties Mrs C refers to if she provides it with the addresses. Mrs C says she did provide one address which appeared to be within 20 metres of a high risk area but was not rated as high risk. I have passed this address to the Authority to review and confirm the position to Mrs C. The Authority has also checked the risk rating on its website for the property opposite Mrs C and as it is within 20 metres of the area at high risk it is also given a ‘high risk’ rating. The Authority has provided a map extract with the location of each property’s address-point on Mrs C’s road within the mapping system. These are shown as red dots on each property from which each 20 metre buffer is applied. The Authority says address-points are used rather than an exterior wall or boundary as it allows a consistent national application. The address-point dataset is maintained by Ordnance Survey for the UK and the Authority has a license to use this for its purposes. The Authority uses its GIS software to measure a 20 metre buffer and apply this to all address-points to pick up any areas of surface water flood risk within it.
25. The Authority has confirmed 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. However, if new data was made available from LLFAs between now and 2024 the Authority could use this to update the Surface Water map as and when required.
26. The Ombudsman has no role in determining the flood risk to Mrs C’s property. A complaint to the Ombudsman is not the same as an appeal against the Authority's decision. My role is to look at how the Authority made its decision and whether there was administrative fault. If there was no fault in the way the decision was made, the Ombudsman cannot question it, no matter how much Mrs C disagrees with it.
27. Based on the evidence provided, I have seen no evidence of administrative fault by the Authority in the way it has designated the flood risk at Mrs C’s property or applied the 20 metre buffer.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman