Summary: Ms D complained the Council delayed resolving a leak and removing waste. I have found evidence of fault by the Council including delays and poor communications. I have asked the Council to pay Ms D redress for the fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council delayed investigating and resolving issues with leaks, drainage and refuse relating to a neighbouring property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. Ms D referred to issues with the neighbouring property covering several years. I have investigated from June 2023, which is 12 months prior to the formal complaint, through to the mid-February 2025 when the case was passed to our Assessment Team. Events occurring after mid-February would need to be complained about to the Council before Ms D can bring them to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. I have seen evidence relating to the owner of the neighbouring property (Ms X). That information is confidential and cannot be shared with Ms D but I am satisfied I have seen all the relevant documentation I need to reach a decision on the complaint.
8. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

9. On 14 November 2023 Ms D contacted the Council about a neighbouring property. There was disrepair affecting her home and a large amount of waste in the gardens. Ms D said there were drainage issues, and the hardstanding was damaged. The case was allocated to a Private Housing Standards Team Officer (PHS Officer) who contacted Ms D on 17 November, she would forward the waste report to the Environmental Protection Team (EP Team). Ms D emailed the EP Team that day about rubbish and drainage issues. On 20 November the EP Team noted the case was added to the ‘action diary’. A few days later Ms D told the PHS Officer there was a leak into a shared area from the neighbouring home. On 28 November the PHS Officer told Ms D she had visited the site. In addition to the overground leak it looked like a drain had collapsed and she would raise this with her Manager and aim to revisit the site within two weeks. On 13 December the PHS Officer and her Manager visited the site. They noted water accumulation and indicators of a drain collapse. The PHS Officer wrote to the property owner (Ms X), the leak from her home was impacting on the neighbouring property. She needed to remedy the leak and should also take steps to resolve the collapsed drain.
10. On 8 January 2024 Ms D asked the PHS Officer for an update. The leak was worse, and rubbish had increased at the site. The PHS Officer replied two days later. She agreed the leak seemed worse. She was sending a further letter to Ms X and if no reply in two weeks she would serve a Notice. That same day the PHS Officer wrote to Ms X. On 13 January Ms D told the PHS Officer the leak was severe. On 15 January the PHS Officer told her Manager she would do another site visit and contact agencies involved with Ms X. Later that day the PHS Officer visited the site and made a referral to an agency involved with Ms X. On 16 January The PHS Officer told Ms D she had made a referral to an agency assisting Ms X and was waiting for a response. The next day the Council responded to a query from Ms D’s MP. It said Officers had made referrals to an agency assisting Ms X. If the leak was not fixed in two weeks, it would start enforcement action. In respect of underground drainage the EP Team had contacted the Water Company and was waiting for a reply (I have not seen any evidence of that action). On 18 January the PHS Officer asked the EP Team to look at Ms D’s case. On 24 January the PHS Officer noted they had spoken to the agency assisting Ms X and they would speak to Ms X about the leaks. On 9 February the PHS Officer told her Manager the agency had spoken to Ms X and a meeting was planned for the next week. The Council updated the MP the same day. On 13 February Ms X cancelled the visit. On 14 February the PHS Officer asked the EP Team for an update and what the Water Company had done.
11. On 16 February the Council told the MP it would serve an Abatement Notice. The PHS Officer had chased up the EP Team about other issues and was waiting for a response. On 21 February the Council served an Abatement Notice on Ms X. She must abate the nuisance (caused by the leak) within four weeks. The next day Ms X contacted the PHS Officer, the Council agreed to chase up the Water Company about the drains and see if there was any funding available through schemes for the leak repair. On 27 February Ms D reported the leak was ongoing. The PHS Officer told Ms D the Abatement Notice deadline was mid- March. The Council would carry out tests to check any works were satisfactory. The PHS Officer had chased up the EP Team again about the other issues.
12. On 12 March Ms D asked the PHS Officer for an update. The next day the Council wrote to Ms X to contact it about the leak. A further letter was sent to Ms X on 22 March, the leak had not been resolved and the Council needed to access the property to find the cause of the problem. If not resolved by 28 March, the Council would apply for a warrant to gain entry and get its contractors to do any repairs. At the end of March Ms X was in contact with the PHS Officer detailing personal circumstances. The PHS Officer said the Council was aware of Ms X’s situation but still needed to access the property. The PHS Officer also emailed the EP Team again asking for an update.
13. On 8 April the PHS Officer called EP Team for an update and noted ‘hasn’t visited yet’. On 16 April the MP asked for an update. On the same day the PHS Officer contacted the court and applied for a warrant to gain entry to a property. On 17 April the PHS Officer called the Water Company who confirmed it had visited the site on 11 February, and it was a private drainage issue. On 24 April the PHS Officer visited the site but could not gain access. On 5 May Ms D told the PHS Officer there was another leak in the shared area and the other issues remained outstanding. The PHS Officer visited a few days later but could not evidence a leak. She was in contact with Ms X that month who said she had fixed another leak. The PHS Officer updated Ms D on 17 May, the leak seemed to be resolved but if that was not correct to let the Council know. She was waiting for an update from the EP Team about the other issues. Ms D then emailed her MP and the Council. She had called the EP Team, and they were unaware of her reports about waste and drainage matters, it had now escalated her case. Ms D also asked the Council what had happened with getting a warrant to enter the property. On the same day the Council noted, as part of its response for the MP, the EP Team had logged the case on 18 January and assigned it to an EP Officer. The PHS Officer had chased them up ‘on numerous occasions’ but there were no recorded actions by the EP Officer since January. The case was being escalated to a Senior Officer. Also on 17 May Ms D sent the PHS Officer evidence of the leak still happening and asked why the Council was allowing Ms X more time rather than applying to the court. That same day the PHS Officer noted she had called the court to chase up the warrant but had not got a response.
14. On 20 May the Council wrote to Ms X. The works had not been completed, and she had not allowed Officers to inspect the property. The Council would apply for a warrant to gain entry and fix the leak which was affecting the neighbouring home. At the end of the month Ms D reported the leaks were ongoing and the PHS Officer visited the site and confirmed the leaks were happening. On 22 May the EP Team wrote to Ms X requesting waste be removed within seven days. It also updated Ms D. On 3 June the PHS Officer emailed the EP Officer about the waste at the site. Ms D emailed the EP Officer on 5 June that waste had not been removed. On 12 June Ms D reported more leaks in the same area. The PHS Officer said she had applied for a warrant and was waiting for a hearing date. That month the PHS Officer continued to contact Ms X trying to gain entry to the property. On 16 June the EP Officer visited the site to view the waste. On 19 June Ms D formally complained about the lack of action on her case.
15. On 20 June the court set a hearing date for the warrant application was set for 17 July. The PHS Officer visited the site on 21 June, could not access the property and noted the leak was still happening. She also contacted the EP Officer to get in touch with Ms D and provide an update. On 26 June the PHS Manager received Ms D’s formal complaint. She asked the EP Team Leader for an update. On 27 June the PHS Officer asked Ms D for any recent evidence of the leaks to use in court in July. She subsequently sent in further evidence. On 28 June the Council wrote to Ms X that any repairs she had done were unsuccessful and the leak was ongoing. A Council plumber was booked to visit on 11 July to do works. Also at the end of June the EP Team requested Land Registry information about the owner of the property.
16. On 1 July the Council replied to Ms D’s complaint. The Council explained it had not obtained a warrant to enter the neighbouring property because Ms X had started communicating with the PHS Officer. That communication had not continued, and a warrant hearing had been set for July. Because contact with Ms X had been unsuccessful the Council would now proceed with enforcement action. The EP Officer said she had visited the property and would be serving a Notice to have the waste cleared. The response failed to explain what current action was being taken to progress the drainage issue. The next day Ms D told the Council she was not happy with its response.
17. The EP Officer wrote to Ms X on 5 July giving formal notice to remove the waste within 21 days or face a possible penalty. On 16 July the Council gained access to the property and the source of the leak was identified. The PHS Officer cancelled the court hearing because access had been granted. New equipment needed to be fitted at the property to resolve the leak issue. The PHS Officer was in contact with Ms X for the rest of the month about the works needed. On 19 July the PHS Manager wrote to Ms D about her complaint. The PHS Officer had kept Ms D updated. The Council needed sufficient evidence to successfully apply for a warrant. Once it had that evidence Ms X had allowed access without the need for a warrant and the source of the leak had been identified. Ms D had asked why action was not taken about drainage and waste. The PHS Manager had spoken to the EP Team who apologised for the delay. The EP Officer had tried to seek a satisfactory outcome without taking formal action: that had not worked. The case had now been progressed and if the waste was not removed the Council would clear it and charge the cost back to the property owner. The EP Manager would contact Ms D about the drainage issue. Officers had visited the site but could not locate the defective pipework. The Council carried out works on 24 July and cleared the waste.
18. The Council says an EP Officer called Ms D on 7 August and explained the process to remove waste and attend to underground drainage. I have no note of the call. On 8 August the EP Team held a case review and discussed how to test the drainage system. I have no note of the meeting. In August the PHS Officer visited the site and could not gain access. She wrote to Ms X, there had been no progress resolving the leak. She had instructed the Council’s Repair Team to carry out the works needed. Surveys were required in the property first and Ms X needed to allow access, or the Council would obtain a warrant. During that month the PHS Officer was in touch with Ms X about getting a survey booked. On 22 August the Council states the EP Team carried out CCTV and smoke tests on the drainage at the site.
19. On 4 September Ms D reported further leaks and asked the PHS Officer for an update. The PHS Officer responded that she was waiting for date for the Council’s contractors to attend the property. They were subsequently booked for 11 September. On 11 September Ms X cancelled access. This happened again on 18 and 23 September. Also on 18 September the EP Team issued a Notice to Ms X giving 60 days to complete repairs to the drainage. On 3 October Ms D asked for an update from the PHS Officer as it was a year since she reported the problems and nothing was resolved. She repeated the request on 8 October. From 9 to 28 October the PHS Officer worked on access to the property with Ms X who agreed a date for contractors to attend and finalise the works. On 30 October contractors attended the site and were not given access to the property.
20. On 15 November Ms D asked the PHS Officer for an update and reported another leak three days later. The Council says the PHS Officer applied to the court for a warrant to enter Ms X’s home in mid-November, I have not seen a record. On 20 November the Council wrote to Ms X asking her to make urgent contact. On 21 November Ms D asked the EP Team for an update. The EP Officer said they had visited the site and works to the drains had not been completed. The Council would carry out the works and charge the property owner. The works would have to go out to tender because of the cost. On 29 November Ms D again asked the Council for an update. On 5 December the Council sent a letter to Ms X, it had applied to the court for a warrant and the hearing was set for 19 December. On 11 December the PHS Officer updated Ms D. Ms D asked what happened with the July warrant and the PHS Officer explained that had been cancelled because Ms X had allowed access. On 12 December the Council says the EP Team held a case review and agreed to get a quote for works to the drains from two contractors. I have no note of the meeting. On 19 December a warrant was granted. The PHS Officer updated Ms D the next day.
21. On 3 January 2025 the Council wrote to Ms X, works would take place 6 January. On 6 January the works had to be postponed because of severe weather. On 8 January the EP Officer contacted a contractor asking for a quote on the drainage works. Contractors attended on 10 January and works were completed inside the property. On 13 January the PHS Officer updated Ms D about the works. She also said an EP Officer should be in touch about the drainage issue. In January the EP Team considered quotes from contractors and agreed a company to carry out the repairs. I understand works were subsequently undertaken and the underground drain repaired.

What should have happened

Leaks

22. A leak occurring in a private property which may be affecting another private property can be investigated by the Council’s PHS Team. On receipt of a report about leaks from a resident, the Council allocates the case to a PHS Officer to investigate. The PHS Officer may inspect the property where the leak originates to find the source of the problem and whether it is causing a statutory nuisance. If access to a property is delayed the Council must first resolve the access issue. The Council can liaise with other relevant agencies involved with a resident to help gain access. If access remains an issue the Council can apply to the courts for a warrant.
23. If the PHS Officer is satisfied the leak is casing a statutory nuisance they will ask the property owner to resolve the leak and should serve an Abatement Notice. If the property owner fails to resolve the leak within the timeframe set by the Council, the PHS Officer can instruct Council contractors to carry out the repairs and the cost is charged back to the property owner.

Waste

24. When a resident reports an accumulation of waste in the garden of a private property the case is considered by the EP Team. The case is allocated to an EP Officer who should write to the complainant and the property owner. The EP Officer asks the property owner to resolve the waste within a set timeframe. The Council says the EP Officer should try to informally resolve the issue with the property owner. If that does not work the Council can serve a formal Notice on the property owner (under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949). This requires the waste is removed within a set timeframe. If the property owner fails to comply the Council can clear the waste and recharge the cost to the owner.

Underground leaks

25. Reports about underground leaks affecting the hardstanding of a private property are handled by the EP Team. The case is allocated to an EP Officer who should ask the complainant to contact the Water Company to carry out an initial investigation to see who is responsible for the leak. If the Water Company find the leak is a private matter it/ or the complainant should notify the Council. The EP Officer will then investigate the private sections of the drainage system. The Council may carry out tests to identify the leak. Once the leak is found the EP Officer will serve a Notice on the property owner (under the Building Act 1984) requiring remedial works to be completed in a set timeframe.

Was there fault by the Council

26. There is fault by the Council.

Above ground leaks

27. Ms D complains about the time taken by the Council to resolve the leaks affecting her home. The evidence shows me the EPS Officer did seek to progress the case and to provide a reasonable level of updates to Ms D. This was not a straightforward case because the Council had a duty to take account of any mitigating factors Ms X was experiencing whilst also ensuring the leaks were attended to. The Council issued a Notice to Ms X on 21 February 2024 after taking reasonable steps to negotiate an informal resolution. There was delay seeking a warrant to enter the property. The Council had stated it would seek a warrant by 28 March but instead it first applied to the court 17 May. I see there was around two weeks in May where it was unclear if the leak had been resolved but that still meant there was a delay progressing the warrant issue by a month.
28. Once Ms X allowed access in July the Council had no option other than to cancel the warrant application. However once Ms X again refused access in August the Council said it would apply for another warrant if access was not given. That did not happen until mid-November. Again I can see the PHS Officer worked hard to obtain co-operation from Ms X but I do consider a warrant should have been sought sooner and by the end of September at the latest after a series of cancelled visits. In total I find evidence of around ten weeks of avoidable delay in this matter, however I also note that during August to October the Council did still work on the case and were trying to identify if there was funding support for the works to the property.

Waste

29. Ms D reported the waste problem in November 2023, the case was received and noted by the EP Team. There is no record any action being taken until May 2024. That is despite the PHS Officer chasing up the EP Team and contact from Ms D and her MP. It was only as a result of Ms D pursuing an update in May that action was taken. A Notice was issued to clear the waste, and the Council subsequently removed the waste at the end of July. That action could and should have been taken six months earlier. The evidence shows the Council failed to deal with the case correctly and progress it in a timely manner.

Underground drainage issues

30. The Council received Ms D’s report of the issue in November 2023. It could not take further action until the Water Company confirmed if the drain in question was private (and therefore for the Council). That confirmation was received on 17 April, but I have no evidence of action being taken by the EP Team until August. On 22 August the correct process was followed and tests carried out to identify the source of the problem. The Council issued a Notice in September and said, in November, it would seek a quote from contractors. The quotes were not progressed until January 2025. I consider the Council delayed progressing this case by at least three months. It should have taken action soon after it received the April 2024 confirmation. Instead Ms D had to make formal complaints, contact her MP and chase up the Council before useful actions were taken.

Did the fault cause an injustice

31. Ms D had to wait longer than necessary to have the issues resolved. She had to contact her MP, chase up the Council and make formal complaints to get her case progressed by the EP Team.

Back to top

Action

32. To redress the fault and injustice identified above the Council has agreed with my recommendation and will pay Ms D £300 for delay and £200 for her time and trouble.
33. The Council will also consider what service improvements are needed as a result of this case. It should detail what improvements will be put in place including how it will ensure EP Officers progress cases in a timely manner.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of the investigation ending.

Back to top

Decision

35. I find fault causing injustice. I have completed the investigation because the Council agrees to take action.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman