Summary: The Ombudsman discontinued his investigation into Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to deal with flooding/mud on a road because there was insufficient injustice to Mr X to justify his continued involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council failed to deal with the problems he reported about a road (‘the Road’):

• flooding after heavy rainfall; and
• not being swept in line with its road cleaning programme.

2. Mr X says the failure to clean and maintain the road results in black mud deposits and a build-up of moss. Mr X wants the Council to agree a plan, and then put it in place, to keep the road clean and prevent flooding.

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, for example:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have:

• considered Mr X’s written complaint and supporting papers;
• talked to Mr X about the complaint; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Mr X and the Council and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Background

5. The Council, as a local highway authority, is responsible public roads, including their pavements and grass verges, and keeping them in repair. The Council’s powers include building and cleaning drains to take surface water off public roads.
6. The Council has a programme for cleaning roads using both a road sweeper and manual litter picking. The programme sets out how often the Council will sweep different roads. Under the programme, a lorry should sweep the Road every three months.

What happened

7. Mr X owns a property alongside the Road. Mr X’s tenant contacted him about the Road flooding after heavy rainfall and later leaving mud deposits next to Mr X’s property. Mr X’s tenant had to step into the flood water/mud to get in/out of a car if parked on the Road next to Mr X’s property. Mr X also found plants growing at the edge of the Road, next to the pavement and, moss on the pavement surface near his property.
8. Mr X told the Council about the flooding/mud and unclean Road. The Council replied that it had swept the Road and gave Mr X information about its road cleaning programme. Mr X says one officer suggested the Road might need a drainage gully near Mr X’s property. The officer then moved jobs, but the Council did not tell Mr X and, over the many months that followed, he continued to email the officer.
9. Later, Mr X complained saying the Council was not replying to his emails or telling him what would happen, and when, to deal with the Road flooding. Mr X also said he had had no assurance the Council would clean the Road every three months. The Council replied that Mr X made no contact about road cleaning in the months after it told him the Road was swept. The Council also said it had inspected the Road ‘yesterday’ following the first heavy rainfall since its earlier inspection (Mr X disputes this). It had found no evidence of standing water but would clean out the Road’s drainage channels and double check its levels. (The Council confirms it has done this.) Mr X wanted to continue with his complaint. The Council said further investigation would not change its position and so signposted Mr X to the Ombudsman.

Consideration

10. I must consider what injustice Mr X has experienced and whether it is of significance to justify further investigation by the Ombudsman. Here, Mr X does not live in the property, but his tenant does. So, Mr X’s tenant faced problems when parking along the Road during/after heavy rainfall. Mr X says that tenant moved out and another tenant now lives in the property.
11. Mr X confirms the flooding/standing water and mud is a problem after what he describes as heavy rainfall. And, the Council’s most recent inspection, which it says took place after what it considers to be ‘heavy rainfall’, found no standing water. This suggests the Road’s drainage is suitable and works, including when it rains, but has occasional problems linked to substantial downpours. I recognise that infrequent problems may be frustrating and will be inconvenient for those directly and unavoidably affected. I also recognise Mr X, understandably, found the Council’s failure to reply to his emails disrespectful.
12. And yet, while it took time, the Council did apologise to Mr X for not replying to his emails and inspected the Road after ‘heavy rainfall’. And, although the Council found “no issue” with the Road on its inspection, it told Mr X what steps it would take (see paragraph 9). On balance, I find the Council’s, delayed, actions and response substantively address the injustice to Mr X arising from its failures to reply to his emails or confirm what it would do about the Road. I therefore decided to stop the investigation as it is unlikely I can achieve more for Mr X and any remaining injustice experienced by Mr X does not justify the Ombudsman’s further involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I discontinued my investigation into Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman