Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained about issues with the work the Council carried out to prevent flooding of their drive. As the Council took action to address the issues of concern, we discontinued our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X and Ms Y say flood water from the highway has run onto their property for last four years. They complain about works the Council carried out to the highway and the entrance to their driveway to alleviate the flooding. They complain that;
• The Council installed kerb stones to the west side of their driveway which narrowed the entrance. This causes access issues.
• Their son’s car is low to the ground gets grounded because of the works. They complain the contractors did not take account of this, although they were made aware in advance.
• The Council spread spoil from the works on a grass verge in front of their property which made it unsightly.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have not investigated the flooding issue itself. I have considered the complaints made about the highway works. The reasons for this are set out in the last section of this statement.

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 must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault or the investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
4. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information provided by Mr X and Ms Y. I asked the Council for information and I considered its response to the complaint. I sent a draft decision to Mr X and Ms Y and to the Council to enable them to comment. I received no comments on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. In April 2019 the County Council met with Mr X and Ms Y to agree works to prevent water entering their property from the highway. The County Council agreed to install kerbs to the verges either side of the drive and a line of granite setts along the front of the drive entrance. The Council also arranged to install two storm drains and a culvert pipe to drain water away. The works were carried out in May 2019.
7. After the Council carried out the works, Mr X and Ms Y complained. The key points they raised were;
• The spoil on the verge had rocks and stones in it. They felt the verge should be grassed over as it was previously.
• The driveway was narrower than previously and was straighter on one side. This made it difficult to enter or leave the drive with a trailer safely. They also stated it breached their planning permission.
• The granite setts were too high and caught the bottom of their son’s car (which had low ground clearance).
8. They also asked the Council to clarify how much of the verge the highway authority owned and who was responsible for the culvert pipe that runs under that verge.
9. The Council’s records noted the work had been tested in heavy rain and solved the flooding problem. The Council considered the work had been carried out to a high standard.
10. The Council wrote to Mr X and Ms Y in June in response to their concerns. They provided information in response to their questions about the extent of the highway boundaries. They also explained their standard practice was to topsoil and seed roadside verges, not turf them.
11. The Council stated the driveway had been slightly widened by the works, not made smaller. The shape of the curb to one side of the drive had been constrained by a telegraph pole. The Council acknowledged that Mr X and Ms Y’s son’s car was catching the granite setts. It asked them to provide photographs or a video of this problem so they could consider a suitable solution.
12. Mr X and Ms Y complained to the Ombudsman at this point.
13. The Council says it did not receive a video to show the grounding problem. However, correspondence with Mr X and Ms Y continued. In July 2019, the Council proposed returning to site to remove stones/rocks and replace some of the soil with topsoil of a finer grade. They also agreed to patch across the granite setts to reduce some of the height. I understand Mr X and Ms Y remained dissatisfied and they re-iterated their concern that the access was not suitable to allow safe access to and from their property for larger vehicles.
14. The Council visited the site at the end of July. In August, the Council carried out further work to widen Mr X and Ms Y’s driveway, moving the kerbstones back by a metre. They also reduced the height of the granite setts from 40mm to 20mm. This addressed the key concerns they raised.

Analysis

15. I acknowledge the concerns that Mr X and Ms Y raised about the work the Council carried out to the highway and to the highway verges either side of their driveway. The Council’s position initially was that the works met the appropriate specification. It noted that its policy was not to re-turf verges. It spread topsoil on them and re-seeded.
16. In response to further correspondence from Mr X and Ms Y and their concerns about accessing the drive safely, they visited the site and then carried out remedial work to address the remaining issues Mr X and Ms Y raised.
17. The Council has carried out works to address the issues Mr X and Ms Y complained of. This has addressed any injustice caused. As a as result I discontinued my investigation and closed my file.

Back to top

Final decision

18. The Council has taken action to address the concerns Mr X and Ms Y made. As a result, I discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

19. I have not investigated the cause of the flooding and its impact over the previous four years. This is because the Ombudsman expects complaints to be brought within 12 months of an issue being known to a complainant.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman