Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of a watercourse near Mrs Y’s home. Mrs Y has a legal remedy for her substantive complaints through the courts, and it is reasonable to expect her to do this.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complained the Council has failed to adequately maintain or complete repairs to a watercourse near her home.
2. Mrs Y said these failures have affected her ability to sell her home, caused damage to her property and caused her distress.
3. Mrs Y also said she wants to be awarded compensation for the negative effect the Council’s failings have had on her property’s value and for unacceptable administrative delay, wants the Council to fix her property that has been damaged, and reimburse her for the cost of a specialist report she commissioned.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Mrs Y.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The Council is responsible for the maintenance of a watercourse near Mrs Y’s home. She says that she has been asking the Council to carry out repairs and preventative work to the watercourse over the past 12 months.
9. When Mrs Y complained to the Council, it set out what actions it had taken since Mrs Y raised her concerns with it and provided information about planned works moving forward. The Council acknowledged and apologised for some delay with contractors and in its communication with Mrs Y.
10. We will not investigate this aspect of Mrs Y’s complaint as there is insufficient evidence of fault. Although I appreciate Mrs Y wants the Council to do more, it is for the Council to decide what action to take. We cannot criticise the Council’s decision making just because Mrs Y disagrees with it. The Council has appropriately explained its decision making and its proposed actions to Mrs Y. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation. Additionally, the Council has apologised for delays in communicating decisions to Mrs Y and that is appropriate.
11. Finally, we are unable to achieve the substantive outcome that Mrs Y seeks from complaining to us. We cannot award Mrs Y compensation for damages and assess the Council’s liability here. Only a court can decide these matters. And given the extent of Mrs X’s claim, it is reasonable to expect Mrs Y to seek a legal remedy through the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because she can take the matter to court, and it is reasonable to expect Mrs Y to do so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman