Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about ditch clearance. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in clearing the ditch to justify investigating and the injustice caused in the Council’s communication is insufficient to warrant our investigation. Also, as we are not able to consider the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains the Council has failed to properly clear a ditch near her home to prevent flooding. She is also unhappy with the Council’s failure to properly respond with her correspondence and calls and how the Council dealt with her complaint.
2. Mrs Y is frustrated the Council cleared part of the ditch but not all of it as she says was agreed verbally on a site visit in October 2021 with a Council officer. She says she is worried her property will flood when there is heavy rainfall if the ditch remains partially blocked.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided Mrs Y and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs Y first contacted the Council to ask it to clear ditches at the side of the road in January 2021. The ditches were full of water which had run off the road following heavy rain. Mrs Y was concerned that, if the water level in the ditches increased, her property would flood. Mrs Y says she chased the Council for a response in February and August 2021 before she sent an email in October 2021.
7. Following Mrs Y’s email, the Council visited her property to inspect the ditches near her home in mid-October. The Council responded, agreeing it had completed some clearance work in April 2021, but the work completed was not as it had planned of approximately 100 metres, as discussed with Mrs Y. It apologised for this and for it not responding sooner. It agreed to arrange for further work to clean the ditch “to maintain the flow of water along its course and particularly ensure that it is lower than the outfall pipe”.
8. The Council carried out further work to clear the ditch in December 2021. However, Mrs Y is unhappy the length cleared is, by her estimate, only 80 metres, not the full-length as agreed verbally in October 2021. Mrs Y complained to the Council about this the same day.
9. The Council responded in January 2022. It explained the original Council officer had left the Council but it had considered photographs taken after the work and reports made at the time. The Council said it believed the work done would be enough to rectify the flooding issue. It asked Mrs Y to provide evidence for its consideration if this was incorrect.
10. Mrs Y was unhappy with this response and asked the Council to reconsider its position. The Council then gave its final response in March 2022. It said it had to prioritise work based on the impact of floodwaters. It said as there had been no further instances of flooding since it had done work on the ditches, the remaining parts of the ditch were not a priority. It said it would continue to carry out regular inspections but without evidence to suggest otherwise, it would not take further action. It then referred Mrs Y to us.

Analysis

Failure to properly clear a ditch

11. Although the Council agreed, according to the October email, to clear approximately 100 metres of the ditch and ensure clearance at various points to maintain water flow. It has cleared approximately 80 metres according to Mrs Y including at the specific points agreed.
12. 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.
13. The Council re-evaluated its original view and the need for clearance with the risk to Mrs Y’s property. It did this by considering all relevant information. It decided the work done is sufficient to prevent flooding. It is unlikely we would find fault in this complaint. As there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigate, we will not start an investigation into this complaint.

Failed to properly respond to Mrs Y’s correspondence and calls

14. The Council acknowledged that its communication between January and October 2021 had been poor and apologised for this in its email in October. It is understandable Mrs Y felt frustrated that the Council had not responded sooner. However, the Council’s apology and acknowledgement of the problem is sufficient to at least partially remedy the injustice caused to Mrs Y. The remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant our investigation so we will not investigate this complaint.

Failure to properly respond to Mrs Y’s complaint

15. Mrs Y says she was frustrated at the way the Council dealt with her complaint. She feels the Council wasted public money when handling her calls and emails about the complaint. We are not investigating the substantive issue in this complaint. It is not a good use of further public resources, which Mrs Y already believes has been used poorly by the Council, to then investigate the Council’s handling of Mrs Y’s complaint. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in clearing the ditch to justify investigating and the injustice caused in the Council’s communication is insufficient to warrant our investigation. Also, as we are not able to consider the substantive issue, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman