Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mr W’s complaint of it failing to respond to reports he sent about a blocked drain on the highway to the front of his house. The Council inspected the wrong drain and only inspected the one he reported 7 months later. It also failed to communicate with him about his reports. The avoidable injustice this caused is remedied by the agreed action.

The complaint

1. Mr W complains the Council failed to respond to reports he sent from September 2018 about a leaking gully drain to the front of his property that it failed to maintain; as a result, the drain affected his property and he spent a great deal of time and effort chasing the Council for responses.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. If we are satisfied with a council’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)
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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered all the information Mr W sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the response from the Council to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent him. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr W and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr W’s house has a storm drain on the road next to the kerb which is directly opposite his footpath which leads to his front door. The road is slightly higher than his property and the kerb is dropped at this location. He complains water overtopped the drain when it became blocked. The problem is solved when the Council unblocks it. Mr W’s concern is when the drain floods, excess water flows out of it and under his stone footpath causing it to lift. He also believes it is responsible for damp in a wall.
6. He is unhappy it took the Council 8 months to act on his last report. He could see the drain was slightly angled towards his property and had some damage. He claims the Council’s insurer agreed the side of the drain had become degraded, but it denied liability for any damage to Mr W’s property.
7. The Council accepts responsibility for this drain. It connects to a sewer which is the responsibility of the local water board.
8. It first received a report from Mr W about the drain in September 2018. It accepted officers incorrectly linked the report to different drains further down the road where there were works on a development. The Council took no further action.
9. It received a second report from him in November when he chased the Council about his first one. Again, officers incorrectly linked this report to drains further along the road.
10. In March 2019, Mr W again chased the Council about his reports. An officer visited 7 days later and found a small amount of debris at the bottom of it which blocked the outer pipe. After removing the blockage, a tanker of water was dropped on the highway to make sure it drained away properly, which it did.
11. The Council confirmed the gully is cleaned once every 5 years

Analysis

12. The record of the report received from Mr W in September states, ‘Defect Location: Outside custs property.’ It records the description given by Mr W which confirmed the drain was directly outside his property, was overflowing, and needed unblocking. A note added states this needed looking at from beyond the highway.
13. The record of the report received from him in November states the location of the defect as outside his property. Mr W’s description is recorded as saying the drain directly outside his property has been blocked for 2 months and still needs unblocking. The record states this was not an issue with the gully but a ‘land drainage issue’.
14. A note in February 2019 states after a visit, the officer noted a blocked drain which needed unblocking by the sewage cleaning vehicle. A later entry notes this was passed to a nearby developer to arrange for the sweeping of the road and removal of building debris from highway gullies. As the Council accepted, this was not the drain outside Mr W’s house but drains further along the road.
15. The records show in March, an officer visited the correct location and found the drain clear and running although the Council said the officer found the outlet pipe blocked from a small amount of debris. The officer noted Mr W has a concrete drive which falls back to the property and has no drainage. Photographs taken support this observation.
16. The Council accepted it did not identify the correct drain when officers visited on both of Mr W’s reports. The Council failed to inspect the drain he reported for 7 months and there is no evidence of it communicating with him about what action, if any, it was taking on them. This is fault. I am again satisfied Mr W provided the Council with enough information on both reports for it to correctly identify the drain he had concerns about.
17. I consider the fault caused Mr W an avoidable injustice. The delay caused distress as he had uncertainty about whether the Council was acting on his reports, experienced some stress, inconvenience, and frustration.

Agreed action

18. I considered our guidance on remedies.
19. The Council will, within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint, carry out the following:
1. Send Mr W a written apology for both the delay in dealing with his reports and its poor communication;
2. Pay him £150 for the avoidable injustice this caused;
3. Arrange for the inspection of the drain in March 2020; and
4. Remind officers dealing with these reports of the need to keep the reporter updated about what action, if any, the Council is taking.

Back to top

Final decision

20. The Ombudsman found fault causing injustice on Mr W’s complaint against the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman