Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council has dealt with his reports about drainage problems in the road immediately outside his home. The Council delayed inspecting the site and responding to Mr B’s complaint, which is fault. The Council also gave Mr B unclear information about how long it would take to resolve the problem, which caused frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr B for the injustice caused and remind staff of the timescales for dealing highways issues and complaints.

The complaint

1. The Complainant, whom I have called Mr B, complains about the way the Council has dealt with his reports about drainage problems in the road immediately outside his home. The Council said its contractor made a site inspection the day after he first reported the problem, but Mr B says his CCTV footage shows no one attended on that date. Mr B is unhappy with the Council (and its contractor) providing different timescales to resolve the issue. He feels the Council is misleading him and is frustrated at the lack of clarity in the Council’s responses.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), 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)
4. 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

5. I have spoken to Mr B and considered the information he has provided in support of his complaint.
6. I have considered the information the Council has provided in response to my enquiries.
7. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I received no comments from Mr B to consider. The Council confirmed its acceptance of my findings and the action I had recommended.

Back to top

What I found

Highways Act 1980

8. The highways authority is responsible for maintaining a highway that is maintainable at the public expense. (section 41)
9. The highways authority, for the purpose of draining or preventing surface water from flowing on to the highway has the power to a) construct or lay, in the highway or land adjoining near to it, such drains as they consider necessary; and b) scour, cleanse, and keep open all drains situated in the highway or land adjoining or laying near it. (section 100)
10. The highways authority is responsible for drainage gullies into the sewer system which is managed and maintained by the area water board.
11. The Council commissions all its highways maintenance work from an external contractor. The actions described below have been undertaken by the Council’s contractor but stated as the Council’s action.

What happened

12. Mr B first contacted the Council to report issues with standing water on the street immediately outside his home on 20 August 2018.
13. In early February 2019, the Council (via its contractor) went out to inspect the site. The note the officer inspecting received stated the issue reported related to potholes and defects in the surface of the pavement and road. The officer took photographs of the pavement outside Mr B’s home during their visit and recorded no apparent defects with the surface of the road or pavement.
14. The Council wrote to Mr B the day after the site inspection and explained the issues he had reported did not meet the safety criteria for further action.
15. Mr B wrote to the Council in April 2019 to complain about its decision not to address the issue in his street. He stated he had checked his CCTV footage on the day of the officer’s visit and there was no sign of them. Mr B told the Council he doubted the officer had been out to inspect the street as they would have seen the large puddle of water pooling on the pavement outside his house.
16. The Council sent an officer out to inspect Mr B’s street again at the end of April 2019. This officer saw standing water on the pavement and suggested the gullies draining into the sewer needed cleaning.
17. On 13 May 2019, the Council wrote to Mr B. It apologised for not identifying the problem sooner. The Council told Mr B it would need to install a new rainwater gully in his street and would aim to complete this work in 12 weeks.
18. Mr B remained concerned the Council had not identified the problem on its first inspection. He asked for his complaint about the Council’s handling to be escalated to stage three of the Council’s complaint procedure. The Council confirmed it would provide its complaint response by 20 June 2019.
19. Mr B contacted the Council again on 26 July 2019 as he had not received its stage three complaint response. The Council spoke to Mr B on 6 August 2019 about his complaint but the call was cut off due to technical problems. Mr B did not hear from the Council again until 21 August 2019 when it apologised for the delay in responding to his complaint.
20. The Council sent its stage three complaint response to Mr B on 22 August 2019. It apologised for the delay in identifying and resolving the issue with standing water in his street. It explained the gully installation in Mr B’s street was low priority compared with other major works in the Council’s area. The Council told Mr B it was not likely to complete works in his street for the next six to twelve months.
21. Mr B contacted the Ombudsman because he remained dissatisfied with the Council’s handling. He felt it should have addressed the issues he had reported sooner.

Analysis

22. The Council’s records show Mr B first reported his concerns about standing water to it in August 2018. It is unclear why it took the Council seven months to act on Mr B’s report. The Council has not provided any evidence to show it told Mr B of when it would investigate his concerns. This delay in the Council’s handling was fault and caused frustration and inconvenience to Mr B.
23. The Council was then at fault for inaccurate recording of the problem. This meant the officer inspecting Mr B’s street in February 2019 was looking for potholes and other defects in the road and pavement surface rather than issues with pooling water. This caused further injustice to Mr B as he had to wait a further two months before the Council identified the correct problem.
24. Mr B complained the Council had misled him when it said an officer had been out to inspect the street on 12 February 2019. I am however satisfied the Council officer did attend to inspect the site as I have seen the date stamped records they made and the photographs they took. It is possible Mr B’s security camera was not positioned to record the officer’s presence on the street.
25. The Council told Mr B in May 2019 that works to install a new rainwater gully in his street would take 12 weeks to complete. At the end of August 2019, the Council then informed him the problem might not be resolved for another year. The lack of clarity in the Council’s contact with Mr B about when it would complete the gully installation was fault and caused further frustration and created uncertainty.
26. The Council’s complaint handling was also poor in Mr B’s case. He had to contact the Council several times for a response to his stage three complaint. The delay in the Council’s response added to Mr B’s existing frustration.
27. Mr B told me the Council installed the gully in his street at the end of February 2020 and this has eliminated the problem of pooling rainwater near his property’s driveway.
28. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I found fault with the actions/service of the contractor, I have made recommendations to the Council.

Agreed action

29. Within one month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• apologise to Mr B for the delay in dealing with his concerns about water pooling on his street and his complaint its service.
• pay £200 for the uncertainty, frustration and inconvenience caused to Mr B by its faults. This amount also accounts for the time and trouble Mr B took in raising his concerns and subsequent complaints.
• remind relevant staff of the timescales they should adhere to when progressing reports about highways defects and complaints about that service.

30. The Council should provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has completed the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

31. I have completed my investigation and found fault with the Council and its contractor. This fault caused Mr B injustice and the Council has agreed to take the action I recommended to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman