Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about highway maintenance because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to properly deal with a drainage issue on the road outside his property. Mr Y says this led to excess water on the road, which then causes water to flood into his garden. He is also unhappy with the lack of responses to his complaint, which he says he has had to repeatedly chase.
2. Mr Y says the issue has caused damage to his property as well as upset and worry for the safety of the road and his property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. 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

6. I considered information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Following two reports of standing water on the road outside Mr Y’s property, the Council inspected the highway in April 2024. The Council initially found no issue from the location details Mr Y had provided. It later found that a drain near Mr Y’s property needed to be cleared and added the drain to the annual cleaning program, where it had previously been listed for cleaning only on an ad-hoc basis. This drain is situated approximately 90 metres from Mr Y’s property, albeit that the correspondence originally described it as being outside Mr Y’s home, which led to some confusion for Mr Y.
8. During my consideration of this case, the Council has also chased its contractor for the drain to be cleaned, which it believes will resolve the issue. While Mr Y may have preferred the Council to act more quickly, the Council has acted to assess the issue, considered Mr Y’s correspondence to identify the issue after its initial assessment, and has planned maintenance works to resolve the problem. It is now acting to ensure this work is completed as part of its annual maintenance programme by chasing its contractor.
9. As the Council has properly considered the issue, using its expertise and experience, and is putting in measures to resolve the problem, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
10. As we are not investigating the substantive issue in this complaint, it is not a good use of public funds to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint. We will therefore not investigate this.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman