Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of the public highway near Mr X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to prevent puddles forming on the highway outside his home in heavy rain. He says that traffic splashes water onto his home and driveway and that he cannot access his car outside his home without being splashed when the road is flooded. He wants the Council to improve the drainage on the highway.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X says he complained to the Council about blocked drains because whenever there is heavy rainfall the on highway outside his home it forms puddles which are splashed onto his home and driveway. He says that when he is parked outside his home, he cannot open his car without his family being splashed.
6. The Council sent an engineer to inspect the drains but he found that they were clear of obstructions. Mr X says he called on a dry day and there was no water present. However, if the drains had been blocked, they would have been full of water at the gulley locations, which they were not. The Council told Mr X that the drains can only cope with a certain amount of rainfall and that when the rain is severe, they will overflow and cause puddles as they do throughout the country because the system is not designed to cope with extremes in weather. Only larger capacity drains could alleviate this and this would involve major engineering works.
7. The Council is the highway authority and it has a duty to ensure that the highway is kept clear for free passage of traffic. If the drainage is sufficient for this it has no duty to owners of adjacent private property for any run-off, splashing or erosion under the legislation. Any effect on neighbouring property would be a civil matter which can only be dealt with as a legal claim for negligence.
8. When considering complaints, we may not question the merits of the decision the Council has made or offer any opinion on whether or not we agree with the judgment of the Councils’ officers or members when there is no fault. This means we will not intervene in disagreements about the merits of decisions. In this case the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint and explained its role in highway maintenance.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of the public highway near Mr X’s home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman