Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to act to address flooding on a road he uses daily. We found evidence of delay by the Council and that it did not clearly communicate with Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and write to him explaining what action it will take to resolve the flooding.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to act to address severe flooding of a road he uses daily. He states the Council did not take enforcement action to resolve the flooding and closed his reports prematurely. He also stated it failed to properly consider the impact of the flooding on residents and ignored the impact on local traffic and road safety.
2. Mr X stated the flooding resulted in the road being impassible for pedestrians and cyclists. It has also resulted in increased car use, mud and other debris covering his car, road closures and road safety issues.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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(1), as amended)

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s handling of his reports of flooding of a highway near his home.
7. I have not investigated whether Mr X should be compensated for any damage to his car because of the flooding. Complaints about damage to property are about whether an organisation has been negligent. We take the view insurers, and the courts are in the best position to decide whether an organisation has been negligent.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

10. Council highway authorities have a duty under the Highways Act 1980 to ensure the highway is kept clear for the free movement of traffic and pedestrians. This includes maintaining drainage to prevent the carriageway from being obstructed by standing water. This duty relates only to the drainage of the highway itself and does not extend to adjacent land or buildings.
11. Under common law, and under the Land Drainage Act 1991 (“the Act”) a person who owns land or property next to a river or watercourse is the ‘riparian owner’ and is responsible for the maintenance of the bank and bed of their section of watercourse and for removing any obstruction to flow.

What happened

12. Road Y is a route used frequently by motorists and cyclists. It is also used by pedestrians.
13. In early 2024 the Council received reports of flooding along Road Y. It investigated and found the cause was blocked ditches on both sides of the road. It sought to identify the riparian owners responsible for maintaining the ditches.
14. In May the Council wrote to the two riparian owners responsible for the blocked ditches. One of the riparian owners (riparian owner Q) did not reply.
15. On 27 June Mr X reported flooding along Road Y to the Council.
16. On 24 July the Council informed Mr X that it was in the process of writing to riparian owner Q about clearing the ditches. The Council closed Mr X’s case as the flooding was being addressed and monitored under the case reference for the initial report.
17. On 25 September Mr X asked the Council for an update on what action was being taken to address the continued flooding along Road Y. Mr X did not receive a reply.
18. On 16 October Mr X chased a reply from the Council. He said the flooding was causing road traffic congestion and posing a danger to cyclists and pedestrians.
19. The Council replied the same day saying it had been looking at ways to resolve the longstanding flooding along Road Y and was now writing to riparian owner Q.
20. On 29 November Mr X raised the matter with the Council again. The Council told Mr X that it was in contact with riparian owner Q to carry out works to the ditch. It advised this process can be lengthy and it apologised the flooding was yet to be resolved.
21. On 2 December Mr X made a complaint to the Council. He complained that despite being in contact with the Council for the last six months flooding along Road Y remained unresolved. He said the Council should have taken effective action to address the flooding which was causing a danger and nuisance to all road users.
22. On 17 December the Council told Mr X that it had commenced enforcement actions again riparian owner Q requiring them to undertake works to the ditch.
23. On 4 February the Council replied to Mr X’s complaint, which it considered at the second and final stage of its complaints procedure. It said:
• it wrote to riparian owner Q before it closed Mr X’s initial report.
• it has enforcement powers to make riparian owner Q carry out works to the ditch however this is lengthy process. It apologised, that for this reason, he was still waiting for a resolution.
• it could not tell him what action it will take against riparian owner Q because of data protection rules.

It did not uphold his complaint.

24. Unhappy Mr X complained to the Ombudsman. His grounds of complaint remained unchanged.
25. In response we made enquiries of the Council. It told us:

• when it receives a report of a highway problem it creates a master enquiry. It uses the master enquiry to monitor the problem and record the action it takes to resolve it. The master enquiry is closed when the problem is resolved. Other reports about the same problems are closed after they have been acknowledged. This is because the problem will be progressed under the master enquiry.
• it does not have an enforcement policy or procedure detailing how it will take enforcement action against riparian owners. It is writing an enforcement policy.
• it inspected Road Y on seven occasions since Mr X’s first report of flooding. It also assessed the flooding to see if closing Road Y was necessary.
• there are no residential properties along the part of Road Y which was subject to flooding. There is also no footpath on Road Y.
• works were undertaken in February 2025 to clear flood water from Road Y and to re-establish a flow to the culvert underneath the highway. The works were successful and so it also carried out works to the surface of the highway.
• the culvert under the highway is in poor condition and the Council is obtaining quotes to replace it. It said it hopes to replace the culvert by spring 2026.
• there have been no recent reports of flooding on Road Y but recognised there has been little rainfall recently.

It also provided details of its communications with riparian owner Q and the action it is taken to achieve compliance with their riparian duties.

Finding

26. Records show the Council received reports of flooding along Road Y in January 2024. While the Council investigated and found blocked ditches along the road were the cause it did not contact the responsible riparian owners until late May. This was five months after the initial report. This is delay by the Council.
27. Riparian owner Q did not reply to the Council’s initial letter however the Council did not write to him again until late October. This is several months after its initial letter and nearly four months after Mr X’s initial report. While I appreciate the Council must give riparian owners time to act on maintenance requests, it should have followed up the matter sooner.
28. Evidence provided by the Council shows that since October it has been taking appropriate steps to ensure riparian owner Q complies with their maintenance responsibilities.
29. Nevertheless I am concerned the Council does not have an enforcement policy explaining how and when it will take enforcement action against riparian owners that do not meet their maintenance responsibilities. Without a policy officers do not have clear instructions for how and when enforcement action should be taken. The lack of a policy likely contributed to the delays I have identified. I am pleased the Council is taking action to address this matter.
30. The Council has provided details of the inspections it carried out to ensure Road Y was safe for all road users. I am satisfied it took the necessary action to ensure the road was safe.
31. The Council carried out an inspection of the culvert under Road Y in February 2025 and found it needed clearing and replacing. I am concerned the Council did not inspect the culvert earlier. While the blockages in the ditches along Road Y is the main cause of the flooding, a blocked culvert would likely have aggravated the flooding. Earlier inspection and clearance of the culvert would likely have eased the impact of the flooding.
32. Mr X has expressed concern that his reports of flooding were closed before the matter was resolved. The Council has explained it was monitoring and acting on flooding along Road Y under the case reference for the initial report. I do not find the Council at fault for closing Mr X’s reports after acknowledging them.
33. However I have seen no evidence the Council clearly communicated to Mr X why it was closing his report or how it would continue to monitor flooding along Road Y to ensure it was resolved. This is fault which has caused Mr X uncertainty. This is injustice.

Agreed Action

34. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr X in writing for the identified fault and the injustice caused to him.
• Explain to Mr X in writing what action it will take to ensure riparian owner Q meets their maintenance responsibilities and the likely timeframe for ensuring this done.
35. Within three months of my final decision the Council will:
• Complete writing a policy for taking enforcement action against riparian owners who do not meet their maintenance responsibilities.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

37. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman