Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council not arranging for essential equipment to be relocated before garden works were carried out. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about drainage works in her garden and specifically that:
• there was a delay in carrying out the works;
• the works did not address the drainage problems, and have made them worse;
• there was a delay in replacing a storage container damaged by the contractor;
• she was not kept updated and there were delays in responding to her;
• there was a delay in carrying out remedial work.
2. Ms X said that, due to Council failings, she:
• was not able to access essential equipment for pain relief;
• slipped and was injured. This meant two hospital visits, she lost working days (and pay) and it took 2-3 weeks to properly recover, which impacted on her underlying health condition.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
4. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(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 Ms X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X is a private tenant of a company owned by the Council.

What happened

9. The company agreed to carry out works in her garden to address poor drainage. It told her the works would start on 9 September, but they did not start until 10 September. Ms X said the contractor agreed the work would be completed by the Friday, but it was not completed until the Saturday. Ms X said she had told the contractor at the outset the deadline for completing the work was important because she needed access to essential equipment in the garden for managing a health condition.
10. In its complaint response, the Council did not uphold the complaint about delay but apologised for any frustration caused. However, it accepted it should have suggested the equipment was relocated before the work began so she could have access to it throughout.
11. During the works, the contractor damaged a storage container. Ms X reported this on 15 September, and the contractor replaced it on 20 September. The Council upheld the complaint about delay in replacing the container.
12. Ms X also complained the works had not resolved the drainage issue and said it had made things worse. In its complaint response, the Council said it did not know why the works had not resolved the problem as the same work had been successful at other properties. It had carried out two inspections (in October 2024 and January 2025), which had not identified a problem with the drains. The Council accepted that an inspection using a camera down the drains had been promised but said this was not needed following the January inspection.
13. The Council said the contractor would carry out remedial works in Spring 2025. Ms X complained about the delay and the Council explained the reasons why the work could not be done until the Spring, including that it could not be done in poor weather.
14. Ms X also complained that she was the one who had to keep chasing the contractor for updates. The Council accepts some delay in responding to communications from Ms X but says it was proactive in contacting the contractor. The Council said it had reviewed its processes to ensure that tenants are kept updated in future.

My assessment

15. If we investigated further, it is likely we would find the Council at fault for a failure to suggest the essential equipment was relocated before the works started, which caused Ms X an injustice because she did not have access to essential equipment during the works. We cannot say, even on balance, this would have prevented Ms X sustaining an injury and, if Ms X wants compensation for this, it is more appropriate for her to consider court action.
16. It is also likely we would find it at fault for not being sufficiently proactive in keeping her updated, which caused her frustration and meant she was put to avoidable time and trouble pursuing the contactor and the Council.
17. We therefore asked the Council to take action to remedy the injustice caused. It has agreed to take the following action within one month of the date of this decision:
• apologise to Ms X in line with our guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice;
• pay her £300 as a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused.
18. For completeness, it is unlikely we would make a formal finding of fault for works that started two days late and were completed one day later than promised. Nor is it likely we would make a formal finding of fault for delay in replacing the damaged container, which was replaced within five days of the matter being reported.
19. It is also unlikely that further investigation would establish the reasons the work did not address the drainage problems. In any case, the Council agreed the contractor would carry out remedial works and that was sufficient to remedy any injustice caused. The Council explained why the works could not be carried out during the winter months and there is insufficient evidence of fault in respect of that to justify further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We have upheld this complaint. The Council has agreed to take appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman