Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to properly deal with flooding on the complainant’s road over many years. This is because:

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to properly deal with surface water flooding on his road over the last 20 years. In particular, it previously installed an overflow pipe which does not operate correctly, and did not object to a new residential development which will further overload the drainage system.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We can 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. So, we do not start 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation, or,
• we are satisfied with the actions a council has taken or proposes to take.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

4. With regard to the first bullet point above, 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)
5. We also 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)
6. And 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

7. I considered:
• information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included Council’s main complaint responses.
• information about the planning applications for the residential development near Mr X’s home, as available on the Council’s website.
• the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. The time restriction detailed in paragraph 5 above applies to any events or issues which Mr X has been aware of for more than 12 months. I see no good reasons why Mr X would have been prevented from contacting us sooner, so we will not exercise discretion to investigate matters which arose prior to 2024.
9. And in response to the concerns Mr X has previously reported to the Council, I understand it:
• Re-laid all the drains in the location.
• Inspected the area when Mr X reported that the developer was dispensing water into the highway, and said it would conduct further unannounced visits.
• Liaised directly with developer, who explained it had temporarily used an overflow pipe during maintenance work to a ditch. The Council reminded the developer it cannot dispense or pump water into the highway. The developer also agreed to have gullies cleaned, and sweepers were used to remove debris.
• Raised an order for contractors to check for blockages and the correct operation of the overflow pipe referred to in Mr X’s complaint.
• Ordered a repair for the drainage system at the other end of Mr X’s lane, to remove a blockage in the pipe.
10. I am satisfied the Council has taken reasonable steps/action in response to the issues raised, and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve a substantively different outcome for Mr X. We will therefore not investigate these more recent events either.
11. And with reference to paragraph 4 above, the Council was entitled to provide its professional judgement, as a consultee, on the planning applications for the nearby development. The Ombudsman cannot question that judgement even if Mr X disagrees with the advice the Council gave. As such, we would not investigate this part of the complaint either, because we are unlikely to find administrative fault by the Council.
12. Finally, as we are not investigating the substantive issue about the flooding, it would not be a good use of our resources to pursue Mr X’s associated concerns about complaint handling in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:

• it is reasonable to expect him to have contacted us sooner about the more historic events;
• the Council has taken action in response to the concerns raised more recently, and an Ombudsman investigation is unlikely to achieve anything further;
• there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in its role as a planning application consultee; and,
• it would not be a good use of our resources to separately investigate the use of the Council’s complaint process.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman