Summary: Mr C complains the Council failed to prevent highways water flooding onto his property. The Ombudsman has not found evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr C) says the Council has incorrectly designed gullies and highways drains near his home resulting in “constant” flooding problems since at least 2015. Mr C says this has caused damage to his property.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have looked at what happened since 2018. I explain below why I have not looked at other parts of the complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman cannot investigate late complaints unless he decides there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsman about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D)
4. The law says the Ombudsman cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, she may decide to investigate if she considers it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c))
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I have spoken to Mr C and considered the information he supplied. I asked the Council questions and carefully examined its response.

Back to top

What I found

7. In 2010 and 2015 the Council carried out works to highway kerbs near Mr C’s home. In 2016 Mr C reported water from the highway was running onto his property and caused by faults with the kerb and road. Later that year the Council did further works to the kerb.
8. In 2017 Mr C asked the Council to take action. The Council inspected the site and found a blocked highway drain caused by flash flooding. The drain was cleared and the Council said no further action was required.

Events I have investigated

9. In April 2018, the Council’s Solicitor wrote to Mr C primarily about his insurance claim for damage caused to his property. The Council had not heard from him since 2017 but understood Officers had previously visited the site. Mr C said that no action to resolve the flooding had been taken.
10. On 14 May 2019 Mr C complained to the Council. The Council replied a few days later. It had advised Mr C in 2017 that the highways drainage was free from blockages and the flooding was caused by unusually heavy rainfall. The Council did not see that any further works or action was needed.
11. In reply to my enquiries on this case in August 2019 the Council said it had recently visited the site and found a blocked gully which was scheduled to be cleared. It would also refer Mr C’s case to the Surface Water Alleviation Scheme (Water Scheme) to consider further.

What should have happened

12. Day to day flooding issues on the highway are dealt with by the Council’s Highways Team. A resident who reports a flooding problem resulting from the highway will have their case logged and an Officer will visit the site and assess if any works are needed. The Council prioritises when work is required based on the use of the road and the severity of the issue. A main road, for example, is given higher priority than a minor road.
13. The Council also considers reports of highway flooding causing “off-highway problems” such as affecting a residential property. This is looked at by the Flood Management Team under the Water Scheme. There is no duty on the Council to assess every case of flooding under the Water Scheme. Under the process a drainage engineer will investigate and submit an application to the Water Scheme. The Council will assess if works are needed and score the level of risk. The higher risk cases are prioritised for funding. There are no set timeframes for the process.

Was there fault by the Council

14. There is no evidence of fault by the Council. Very little has actually happened in the period from 2018 onwards. However, the Council has recently attended the site and found a blocked gully which it will clear. It has not found any evidence of a flaw in the design of the kerb/ highway. In addition, I see no evidence of a continual issue given the limited number of reports made by Mr C to the Council. I note Mr C says he did not report problems recently because the Council did not respond. However, without any reports, I cannot say the Council was at fault for failing to respond.
15. The Council has agreed to consider the case further under its Water Scheme. It is not obliged to do this but I welcome the offer. The Council should contact Mr C directly and he can decide whether he wants to pursue this option. I have not found any evidence of the Council failing to follow its procedures or policies in this matter.

Back to top

Final decision

16. I have not found fault by the Council and I have completed the investigation and closed the complaint.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

17. I have not looked at events prior to 2018 because the Ombudsman expects a complaint to be made to him within 12 months of the problem occurring, as set out above.
18. I am not looking at Mr C’s claim about damage caused to his property as a result of negligence by the Council. He is pursuing an insurance claim against the Council which is the correct course of action, he can then pursue that matter to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman