Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to carry out sufficient flood mitigation work on a watercourse near the complainant’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s failure to take sufficient action to prevent flooding in future on a watercourse which flows from a neighbouring school onto her property. She says the watercourse flooded her property in 2024 causing damage to her car and home and she is concerned that failure to mitigate this will lead to future incidents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council’s responses.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X says her home and car were damaged by flooding from a watercourse which passes from land owned by a neighbouring school. The Council is the maintenance contractor for the school and also the local lead flood authority. She complained to the Council about lack of maintenance to the watercourse and its banks which she believes led to the flooding.
6. The Council says it has carried out work to the watercourse and banks as well as diverting run-off from the school’s hard-surfaced areas. It told Ms X that it will not remove some vegetation and branches from the site because guidance from the Environment Agency is that this can help prevent flooding by reducing water flow and erosion.
7. It is not our role to question the technical merits of the Council’s approach to the works themselves. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
8. If any future flooding occurs the complainant could make an insurance or legal claim against the school if she believes it has not met its riparian duties in terms of flooding maintenance.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to carry out sufficient flood mitigation work on a watercourse near the complainant’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman