Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it charged Mr B for risk assessing his private water supply. It had the authority to increase its fee and it fully explained why it did so. Its decision was not obviously unreasonable. This means we cannot question it – as we have no power to question decisions made without fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr B, has a private water supply to his home. The Council requires this supply to be ‘risk assessed’ periodically (which the Council does itself).
2. Mr B complains that, since its last risk assessment in 2016, the Council has increased its fee from £100 to over £350. He says this is more than the assessment costs the Council to complete. He wants an invoice for a lower amount.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

5. I considered information from Mr B and the Council.
6. I considered relevant parts of the Private Water Supply (England) Regulations 2016.
7. I researched risk assessment fees charged by a sample of other councils.
8. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Regulations

9. Councils must carry out risk assessments for private water supplies in their respective areas, and review and update those risk assessments every five years. (Private Water Supply (England) Regulations 2016, Regulation 6, as amended)
10. A council may charge a fee for a risk assessment of a private water supply. The fee should be the reasonable cost of providing the service. (Private Water Supply (England) Regulations 2016, Schedule 5, as amended)
11. Regulations originally set a maximum fee of £500, but this limit was subsequently removed. (Private Water Supplies (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, Regulation 2(13))

What happened

12. The Council conducted a risk assessment of Mr B’s water supply in November 2022. It then sent him an invoice for £367.50. Mr B was unhappy with this and complained.
13. The Council told Mr B that its previous rate (which applied in 2016, and which had only cost Mr B £100.80) was too low and did not cover the Council’s costs. It said its new rate – £70 per hour of the officer’s time – was in line with the rates charged by other councils.
14. The Council told Mr B that the officer who completed the risk assessment spent an hour on site, two and a quarter hours travelling, and two hours on research and writing the report. It said it invoiced Mr X for travelling time because it approaches fee-setting in the same way as a commercial enterprise does, and tries to recover total costs. It said other residents should not have to contribute towards the costs of risk assessing Mr B’s water supply.
15. The Council offered to reduce Mr B’s invoice slightly to reflect his claim that the officer was on site for 50 minutes, not an hour. But it refused to reduce the fee any further.

My findings

16. The Ombudsman cannot tell a council how much to charge for a service, although we can criticise councils which fail to have due regard to relevant regulations when setting prices.
17. Since the removal of the fee cap for risk assessing private water supplies in 2018, there is one consideration for the Council when deciding how much to charge: what is the reasonable cost of providing the service?
18. This ‘reasonable’ test is one which must be applied by the Council, not the Ombudsman. Only in exceptional circumstances – when the Council’s decision is so obviously unreasonable that it defies logic – would I be able to question it.
19. In Mr B’s case the Council says the previous fee was too low to meet its costs. It says it considered the hourly rates charged by other councils when increasing its own. It also explained why it decided to charge Mr B for the travelling time of the officer as well as her time on site.
20. This decision was within the Council’s authority to make, and was not obviously unreasonable. Because of this, I have no power to question it.

Back to top

Final decision

21. The Council was not at fault for how it charged Mr B for risk assessing his private water supply.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman