Summary: The Council was not at fault for how it dealt with Dr B’s reports of surface water flooding affecting his property. It considered the problem in line with its procedure, responded to Dr B’s concerns and fully explained its decision. As there were no procedural errors which undermined the Council’s decision-making, we cannot question the outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Dr B, says his property is subject to significant flooding from surface water which comes from the neighbouring road. He complains that the Council, which is responsible for the road, has refused to take remedial action to prevent the flooding.
2. Dr B says the flooding has caused structural damage to the foundations of his property. He wants the Council to take action.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

What I have and have not investigated

6. Although this matter has been going on for several years, there is no good reason Dr B could not have complained to us earlier. Consequently, I will not look at anything which happened before 2022.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information from Dr B and the Council.
8. I considered the Council’s policies and procedures.
9. Dr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s responsibilities

10. The Council investigates flooding from surface water. It can also commission works to prevent surface water run-off. But no drainage system can provide absolute protection from flooding, and the Council is not responsible for protecting people’s private property. (The Council’s flood risk management strategy)
11. The Council has a duty to provide adequate road drainage. Historically, ‘gullies’ – large pots covered by metal grids, usually found at the edge of roads – have been the most common way of doing this. They collect surface water from the road and drain it into a piped system. (The Council’s website)
12. Gullies are routinely cleaned once a year by a mechanical emptying machine, and more often if required (or if a problem is reported). (The Council’s website)
13. Sometimes a gully, or the attached pipework, may appear to be blocked. These blockages can ordinarily be cleared by a high-pressure water jet. If this does not work, the Council may undertake a survey to establish if the cause of the problem. This could lead to significant repair work (such as digging up the road). (The Council’s website)
14. In times of heavy storms, sewers may become full. However, when the rain stops and the level of flow in the sewer drops, the gullies start working again, and the flooding clears. (The Council’s website)

What happened

15. In January 2022, Dr B told the Council that the gullies at the front of his property were not draining the surface water off the road. He said this was causing flooding to his property. He referred to previous reports he had made about this matter in 2020 and said the Council had not taken any action.
16. The Council arranged for the drains to be cleared and it let Dr B know. This took place in early March. The technician who attended reported that the drains were clear, and the system was working well.
17. In June, after further correspondence from Dr B, the Council told him it would arrange a survey of the drainage system in the area around his property. It said it would not consider taking remedial action until it had done the survey.
18. The survey took place in August. The Council then wrote to Dr B and said:
• The road was structurally sound and was not relying on Dr B’s front wall for support. The decision to build the wall up against the road was that of the person who built it, not the Council.
• Installing a kerb between the wall and the road – something Dr B had suggested – would not be suitable. This would involve moving the gullies into the line of traffic, which would increase noise and place them at risk of damage. Furthermore, it would not increase the effectiveness of the drainage system.
• Dr B’s house had unauthorised drainage into the public system, which overloaded it at times of heavy rain.
• The drains were fully functional and accessible to the water from the road.
• No further work was needed to improve the water drainage from the road.
19. Dr B was unhappy with this outcome. He said he had received input from an ‘expert’, who said the problem was the poor structural design of the road. Dr B did not provide evidence from the expert.
20. The Council told Dr B that, as there was no indication that the structure of the road was failing, it would not undertake a structural survey. However, it said the road would continue to receive quarterly safety inspections.
21. Dr B made complaints about this matter. The Council did not change its views, and also noted that Dr B’s property is at high risk of surface water flooding on the Environment Agency’s website. It said this information would have been available when Dr B bought the property in 2017.
22. Dr B remained dissatisfied with the Council’s responses. The Council told him that it would not respond further, but he could “progress the matter … by making a claim against the Council if you feel you can evidence [the] Council’s negligence”.
23. Dr B approached the Ombudsman.

My findings

24. The Ombudsman has no power to question a council’s decision unless there were clear procedural errors which undermined its decision-making.
25. In Dr B’s case:
• There was a thorough consideration of the issue, including a survey of the drainage system around Dr B’s property. This was consistent with the procedure on the Council’s website.
• The Council took Dr B’s views into account and responded to the points he raised by email.
• The decision was explained in detail.
• The Council did not misinterpret the law or fail to consider its powers.
• There was nothing obviously unreasonable in the Council’s conclusions.
• Although Dr B refers to an expert report, he did not provide this to the Council. The Council says it will consider this report if Dr B provides it.
26. Consequently, I have identified no procedural fault in the Council’s investigation, which means I cannot question the outcome.
27. If Dr B continues to disagree with the merits of the Council’s decision and believes its inaction has caused damage to his property, he may wish to seek legal advice, or contact the Council’s insurance department, as it has suggested.

Back to top

Final decision

28. There was no fault in how the Council responded to Dr B’s reports of surface water flooding.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman