Summary: Mr B complained the Environment Agency failed to maintain an existing flood protection scheme and failed to act to correct known weaknesses in the scheme. Mr B says as a result he has experienced flooding in his property. There is no evidence of fault in the maintenance of the existing scheme or in the Authority’s actions to improve protection.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, complained the Environment Agency (the Authority):
• failed to maintain an existing flood protection scheme; and
• failed to act to correct known weaknesses in the scheme.
2. Mr B says the Authority’s failure to act has led to his property experiencing flooding.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something an Authority has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated what has happened since 2023. I have not investigated what happened before 2023 as I see no reason why Mr B could not have complained to the Ombudsman at the time.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mr B's comments;
• made enquiries of the Authority and considered the comments and documents the Authority provided.
9. Mr B and the organisation 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

The role of the Authority

10. The Authority is the principal flood risk management authority in England. It is responsible for, amongst other things, forecasting, mapping flood risk and managing the risk of flooding.
11. The Authority has the power to carry out land drainage or flood protection works. All powers relating to flooding and land drainage are permissive; so the various bodies involved do not have a duty to take action. They have to prioritise work based on need and take action using public funds when they consider it is justified to do so.
12. If the Authority concerned has assessed the need for flood defence work, followed the proper procedures and relevant guidance in a timely way and then reached a decision, we are unlikely to uphold a complaint.

What happened

13. Mr B lives in a property that has experienced flooding. A flood defence scheme was implemented between 1987 and 1989. That flood defence scheme anticipated the standard of protection at 1:60. However, Mr B experienced flooding in 2012.
14. In response to the flooding in 2012 the Authority developed a proposal for a bypass scheme. That scheme needed planning permission and the Authority applied for planning permission in 2017. As third party landowners objected to the application the Authority could not get planning permission.
15. In 2018 the Authority raised a section of the eastern wall as part of its attempts to reduce flood risk.
16. In December 2023 Mr B’s property was flooded twice.
17. The Authority applied for funding under the frequently flooded allowance scheme in February 2024. The Authority then carried out an engineering assessment of flood defence assets and a topographic survey of the embankments in March and April 2024 respectively.
18. The Authority contacted Mr B in April 2024 to tell him it was reviewing flood management options. The Authority also told Mr B it intended to apply to Natural England for approval of de-siltation works. The Authority told Mr B if Natural England approved those works it would carry them out during the summer. The Authority told Mr B the material removed would then be used to re-profile the embankment where it was damaged.
19. Natural England raised concerns about the proposals for desilting and asked the Authority to complete a stage 2 habitat regulations assessment. As the Authority could not complete that before the period in which the works could be carried out the Authority intends to take that forward in 2025, subject to approval by Natural England.
20. In June and July 2024 the Authority carried out a capital cost review exercise and site visit with consultants. The Authority then began discussing options for scheme improvements, following which it put in a funding bid for the environmental statutory allowance (ESA).
21. During the rest of 2024 the Authority continued to discuss options for scheme improvements and carried out visual inspections of flood defence assets.
22. In February 2025 the Authority received confirmation it would not receive FFA or ESA funding for scheme improvements.
23. The current position is the Authority has received a small amount of funding in 2025/26 to carry out some survey work and modelling to develop possible smaller scale interventions. The Authority plans to continue to pursue funding opportunities for flood scheme improvements.

Analysis

24. Mr B says the Authority failed to maintain an existing flood protection scheme and failed to act to correct known weaknesses in the scheme. Mr B says because of that the standard of protection is no longer what it was designed to be which has resulted in him experiencing flooding. Mr B believes the Authority should take immediate corrective actions to reinstate the 1:60 standard of protection of the original flood protection scheme.
25. As I said in paragraph 11, although the Authority has the power to carry out land drainage and flood protection works that power is permissive and the Authority does not have a duty to act. The issue for me to consider is therefore whether the Authority has properly assessed the need for flood defence work and followed its procedures and guidance.
26. The Authority says it carries out annual inspections of the embankment and those inspections in 2023, 2024 and 2025 showed the embankment in satisfactory condition. The Authority says the only degradation it found was on one section of the embankment in February 2024. However, after further survey and inspection the Authority is satisfied the levels are broadly in line with the original scheme, except for one small section.
27. I appreciate Mr B may disagree with that analysis. I also appreciate Mr B has referred to a report in 2014 suggesting the embankment was in poor condition. However, as I said in paragraph 4, it is not my role to comment on the merits of a decision reached without fault. As the Authority reached its decision about the standard of the embankment after carrying out inspections I have no grounds to criticise it.
28. I understand Mr B’s point though in that as part of the embankment has reduced in height that could have contributed to the flooding he has experienced. The evidence I have seen though satisfies me the Authority has considered the evidence available for the December 2023 flood. The Authority is satisfied the section of the embankment which is in poor condition is not responsible for flooding of Mr B’s property. The Authority has explained its observations show flooding occurred in multiple locations along the embankment and over long lengths, rather than just the section which is in poor condition. That, again, is a matter of judgement and it is not one I could comment on.
29. Mr B notes though the flood defence works completed between 1987-89 would provide a standard of protection of 1:60. Mr B is understandably concerned he has experienced flooding more often than that and the current assessment suggests the standard of protection is more like 1:10.
30. I understand why Mr B would believe that is because the Authority has not maintained the original flood defences to the 1:60 standard of protection as built. However, the Authority points out the assessment of the standard of protection in 1987-9 was based on the methods available at the time. The Authority also points out changing weather patterns and updated future climate change predictions also affect the standard of protection. The Authority says current modelling methods suggests the standard of protection is more like 1:10.
31. Given almost 40 years have passed since the original scheme was constructed it seems likely, on the balance of probability, modelling methods have improved. It is also likely climate change resulting in changes to weather patterns has had an impact. The 2014 flood risk modelling report which led to the proposal for the bypass noted those factors. It therefore may well be the original scheme never provided a 1:60 standard of protection. It is also possible it would have degraded over time due to climate change. It may be those factors, rather than any failure to maintain the scheme, which has resulted in flooding to Mr B’s property more often than expected. As I am satisfied the Authority has carried out annual inspections of the embankment and is satisfied with its condition I have no grounds to criticise it.
32. Mr B says by increasing the flood wall on the east side of the river in 2019 the Authority has exposed his property to a greater risk of flooding. That is because Mr B says the wall on the east side of the river is higher than the flood wall on the west side of the river. Mr B believes that is why his property flooded in December 2023.
33. I am satisfied though the Authority has completed modelling and is satisfied by the time this section of the wall is over topped water will already have flooded from upstream defences being over topped first. The Authority is therefore satisfied increasing the height of the wall has not increased the chance of flooding of Mr B’s property. Again, I appreciate that may be a view Mr B strongly disagrees with. However, I have made clear it is not my role to comment on the merits of a judgement reached without fault. As the Authority has considered the available evidence before reaching its conclusions there are no grounds on which I could criticise it.
34. I am satisfied though the Authority recognises further flood defence works are required. The evidence I have seen satisfies me that prompted the Authority to draw up the bypass scheme in 2016/17. Had the Authority secured planning permission that is the scheme I am satisfied it wanted to carry out. The evidence I have seen though satisfies me the reason that scheme did not go ahead is because there was significant opposition from third-party landowners whose land would have been affected. In those circumstances the Authority could not get planning permission for the proposed works. That is not due to any fault by the Authority and there are therefore no grounds on which I could criticise it.
35. Mr B says the Authority has not sought Government funding for communities where 10 or more properties have flooded twice or more in the last 10 years. Mr B says because of that his community has missed out. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Authority applied for the frequently flooded allowance (FFA) in 2024. This is the scheme Mr B is referring to. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Authority did not secure any funding from that application. As I am satisfied the Authority applied for the funding I have no grounds to criticise it.
36. Despite that, I am satisfied the Authority has secured some limited funding to enable it to carry out some survey work and modelling. The Authority hopes this will identify smaller scale interventions which it can secure funding for. I understand Mr B’s frustration given the time taken. However, as I have made clear, I am satisfied the reasons previous schemes have not taken place is because of matters outside the Authority’s control.
37. Mr B says the Authority planned to clear the river of silt in September 2024 but failed to do so. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Authority could not carry out the work without the consent of Natural England. I am satisfied the reason the work did not go ahead in 2024 is because there is a narrow window when work can be completed. Because Natural England required the Authority to carry out a stage 2 habitat regulations assessment first the Authority could not complete that before the window when works needed to be completed.
38. As that was due to changed advice from Natural England there are no grounds on which I could criticise the Authority. I am satisfied though the Authority continues to work with Natural England in the hope of completing the assessment in 2025 in time to allow the works to take place between June and September 2025. That will also allow the Authority to repair the low spots it has identified in the embankment.
39. I appreciate from Mr B’s point of view he has experienced flooding and is concerned that without immediate action he will experience further flooding in the future. Having considered what has happened since 2023 though I am satisfied there is no evidence of fault in how the Authority has approached the situation. I recognise the Authority has not completed any flood defence works in Mr B’s area but, for the reasons set out earlier, I am satisfied that was not due to fault by the Authority.

Back to top

Final decision

40. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman