Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions relating to drainage and a culvert running off a neighbouring property. Part of the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to consider it now. And of the part that is not late, there is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. Additionally, Mr X could seek a civil remedy in the courts if he believes the drainage poses a risk to his property.

The complaint

1. Mr X was unhappy the Council did not act fairly, or properly when he notified it of concerns of flooding, after a neighbouring property made alterations to their land. He was also unhappy with the action it subsequently took, saying it was ineffective and soil erosion affecting him, could still occur.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
4. 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 a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. In late 2023, The Council and another Authority carried out a site visit at Mr X’s property, in response to concerns he raised, about land alterations at another property. Mr X said the alterations affected the water flow into a river, that was adjacent to his home, and he was concerned about flooding.
10. In August 2024 the Council told Mr X it would investigate his concerns as the Local Lead Flooding Authority (LLFA) and the evidence I have seen suggests in November 2024, Mr X and the Council disagreed about whether there was a flood plain on the neighbouring property.
11. In July 2025, at the Council’s suggestion, the neighbour made changes to how the water drained from their land. The Council confirmed to Mr X that it had taken this action because the area fell within the Land Drainage Act 1991.
12. In so far as it affects the Council’s actions before its July 2025 decision, I will not investigate the Council’s actions. This is because it is a late complaint.
13. Mr X was aware the BINJ had some responsibility as a LLFA in late 2023, and while I acknowledge he was in discussion with another authority, that is not sufficient good reason to exercise discretion to consider the earlier complaints. Mr X would have been aware in August 2024, the Council were now taking the lead on his concerns and he was unhappy with their response in late 2024. He could have made a complaint to us then.
14. Nor will I investigate the Council’s later decision on what action it decided to take as a LLFA (paragraph 11). The Council as flooding authority has considered the matter and it is satisfied with the work the neighbour carried out.
15. 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 and nor can we replace our decision with the Council’s, as a professional decision maker. Instead, we look to ensure the Council has given the matter consideration and the evidence at hand shows it decided on what action was necessary.
16. Therefore, it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision-making and in any case Mr X has a legal remedy against his neighbour through the courts if he remains concerned about damage to his property.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because part of is late and of the part remaining, it is unlikely we would find fault. And Mr X has an alternative legal remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman