Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has failed to stop water ‘pooling’ on the crossover from his property to the highway and should therefore refund part of the installation fee. There is insufficient injustice to Mr X and investigation will not result in the outcome requested.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that following the installation of a dropped kerb outside his property the crossover floods or ‘pools’ with water following substantial rain. Mr X says the Council has tried unsuccessfully to resolve the problem. He says the Council failed to build the crossover to an acceptable standard and should refund part of the installation fee which it has refused to do.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 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.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered Mr X’s information, comments, and replies to my draft decision statement. The information includes correspondence with the Council and photographs of the water.

Back to top

What I found

4. In 2017 the Council installed a dropped kerb/crossover to allow Mr X’s vehicle to pass between the road and his property across the pavement. Mr X says that following ‘substantial rain’ there is ‘pooling on the crossover outside our property’. The Council says, email 1 October 2019, the pooling is temporary but will clear as soon as the rain stops.
5. The Council says its highways and drainage engineer dealt with the issue and its Flood manager has considered it. I understand the council took the following action:
1. It installed a small drain in the crossover which Mr X says did not resolve the problem.
2. It made some alterations to the road. Mr X says this partly improved the road drainage.
6. In 2019 the Council told Mr X that to resolve the problem would require a change to the camber of the road. This would require digging up the whole road. It says this would be very expensive and is not currently possible. Mr X acknowledged the issue and suggested that the Council should refund part of the £2,778 pound fee he paid to have the crossover installed. The Council refused because the crossover was installed and operating.
7. Mr X in his replies to my draft decision has provided photographs of the water/pooling. One was taken this July after light rain. Mr X says the ‘crossover is usable’ and ‘pooling does not invade the property’. He accepts ‘that further work would not be a reasonable expenditure of public money’. However, he says the crossover floods easily and something went wrong with the construction of what was effectively a replacement crossover. He says the previous arrangement did not have water pooling and other crossovers in the area do not suffer that problem. He says he is entitled to expect the crossover to be of an acceptable standard. He therefore requests a part refund of his fee.

Analysis

8. I will not investigate this complaint for the following reasons:
9. Investigation will not add significantly to the information held or lead to a change in the condition of the road/crossover position. The Council has investigated and twice taken remedial action. This has partly improved matters and it has explained that the cost of additional work is not justifiable.
10. The Ombudsman investigates fault causing injustice. There is insufficient injustice to Mr X. The photographs provided show a small amount of water that does not cause injustice. The ‘pooling’ may be larger after heavy rain, but it does not affect Mr X’s property or prevent his safe access to it.
11. There is no reason for the Council to refund part of the crossover installation fee. Mr X has a useable crossover which serves the purpose for which it was installed.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has failed to stop water ‘pooling’ on a crossover from his property to the highway and should therefore refund part of the installation fee. There is insufficient injustice to Mr X and investigation will not result in the outcome requested.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman