Cheshire East Council (21 011 937)
Category : Transport and highways > Highway repair and maintenance
Decision : Not upheld
Decision date : 28 Mar 2022
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Mr X and Mr Y complained about the Council’s flood management near their property. We found no fault with the Council’s actions. We have completed our investigation.
The complaint
- Mr X and Mr Y complained The Council have not done enough to tackle regular flooding outside their property. They say:
- They reported the problem to the Council 3 years ago.
- When the road is flooded, they can’t leave their property and have had to miss work on several occasions.
- When it rains heavily, they have to take preventative measures (e.g. sandbagging their property) and therefore can’t go away on holiday.
- The Council has provided contradictory information about funding, proposed schemes, timescales, engineering options and what causes the flooding.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
- We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
- 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)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered Mr X and Mr Y’s complaint and spoke to them about it.
- I considered the Council’s response to the complainants and to my enquiries.
- Mr X and Mr Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
What happened
- Mr X and Mr Y reported flooding on the road outside their property in July 2019. They explained there were two locations where the road flooded and was impassable and their property was in the middle. The Council closed the road temporarily due to the volume of water on the highway.
- Between September 2019 and October 2020, the Council recorded nine flood events affecting the road. During this time, the Council said it unblocked, emptied and checked the highway gullies to alleviate the problem. Mr X and Mr Y said this made no difference and was not an adequate solution.
- In October 2020, after receiving funding, the Council initiated discussions with an organisation about reducing the risk of highway flooding. During the course of my investigation, in February 2022, the Council agreed a scoping study produced by the organisation which identified options the Council could choose to implement.
- Mr X and Mr Y said the Council said the funding would pay for the engineering works required. The Council has since confirmed the funding only paid for the initial scoping work.
- The Council said the scoping phase would not involve any assessment work but would be focussed on developing a well-defined and proportionate scope for the feasibility study phase. This report is expected in summer 2022.
- In February 2022, the Council updated its website to explain the different stages the funding would be used for. It explains the complexities of the location and why works will not commence until the summer of 2024 at the earliest.
- In response to my enquiries, the Council apologised if it had not appropriately managed Mr X and Mr Y’s expectations during previous meetings and communication with flood risk representatives around the acquisition of funding for flood mitigation and for any inconvenience this has caused.
My analysis
- I understand Mr X and Mr Y’s annoyance and worry that the road continues to flood, nearly 3 years after they reported it. I recognise Mr X and Mr Y disagree with the decisions the Council has made about this matter. However, I cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong because the complainant disagrees with it. I must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached.
- It was reasonable the Council initially took action by clearing debris and cleaning the drains in an attempt to alleviate the problem. Mr X and Mr Y said this did little help the situation. They have provided photographs showing the drains are blocked again. I have not found fault with the Council on this issue. The Council could increase the frequency of the drain clearing until the engineering works have taken place.
- The Council secured funding to commission experts to scope the work that needed doing to prevent highway flooding. Mr X and Mr Y said the Council never told them the funding was just for scoping. They believed the funding would be for works to solve the problem. They also consider this action to be inadequate considering how long flooding has been an issue in the area. I have found no fault here.
- The Council acknowledged it had not appropriately managed Mr X and Mr Y’s expectations. This was not good practice, but I do not consider this to amount to fault.
- The Council has explained why the process takes so long. The Council has created a dedicated website that it will keep up to date. This is good practice but could have been established sooner to manage residents’ expectations.
Final decision
- I have completed my investigation. I have found no fault with the Council’s actions in relation to the flooding near Mr X and Mr Y’s property.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman