Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council entering Mr X’s property and carrying out a repair which involved altering his rainwater guttering system. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council carrying out work to its property which involved entering his land and diverting his rainwater guttering outlet. He says the Council left the matter to its contractors to inform him what was being undertaken and that he is concerned about any future maintenance issues which might occur.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the Council failed to notify him about work to its neighbouring property which would involve altering his rainwater guttering. The replacement guttering fixed on the Council’s property could not be joined to his own lead guttering because there was not a suitable adaptor available. The Council’s contractors discussed the problem with Mr X and he said he would be willing to talk to the Council about the proposals.
7. The Council carried out the work by entering his land and capping his guttering and providing a fall pipe to divert the flow into a hopper head on his wall. He says it should have discussed the matter first.
8. The Council apologised for the failure to properly notify him of the requirement for access and alteration to the system. It has warranted the work for 12 months and says the rainwater uses the same disposal system as neighbouring properties.
9. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
10. In this case the Council’s apology is sufficient as it is unlikely that a different alternative solution would have been available even had the matter been fully discussed. The work was carried out at the Council’s expense and no costs have been incurred by Mr X. if he believes there are damages resulting from his claim of trespass and interference with his property this is a civil matter and he would need to seek a remedy by way of the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council entering Mr X’s property and carrying out a repair which involved altering his rainwater guttering system. There is insufficient evidence of any significant injustice which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman