Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action in connection with an obstructed watercourse on land adjacent to Mr X’s land. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision not to take enforcement action in connection with an obstructed watercourse on land adjacent to his. He says despite waiting over two years for a resolution, the Council has left him to pursue matters himself at his own cost. He wants the Council to comply with its duty and take enforcement action.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’ which we call ‘fault’. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. After a period of over two years during which time Mr X believed the Council would be taking enforcement action against the owner of land adjoining his in connection with an obstructed watercourse, the Council recently told Mr X that it had decided to take no further action against the landowner.
7. Mr X complained to the Council about its decision. It acknowledged that his expectations had been raised and it apologised for this and recommended that the service involved review how it communicates in future. However, it explained its powers in this area are permissive and not mandatory and that it had no duty to act. It explained why it would not be taking any further action against the landowner.
8. While Mr X’s frustration is understandable, it is not our role to act as an appeal body. We cannot question decisions taken by councils if they have followed the right steps and considered the relevant evidence and information. The decision to take no further action is one the Council is entitled to take and an investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a recommendation for enforcement action.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman