Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision not to take further action and undertake remedial works around Mrs X’s report of water flooding on her street. The Council was at fault for delays in carrying out site inspections and for failing to inform her of its decision not to take further action. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X to acknowledge the injustice this caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to act following her report of flooding in her street. She said rainwater run-off from a nearby car park flows into an adjacent street before running into her own risking damage to her home.
2. She wants the Council to address the run-off problem which would remove the flood risk to her street.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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).
4. 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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs 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

Relevant law and guidance

Flooding on the highway

9. A council has a duty to maintain highways in its area, including highway drainage (Highways Act 1980, section 41). A council must make reasonable arrangements to get rid of water which has fallen directly onto a highway, including the road and pavement. However, it has no duty over water which has run onto the highway from surrounding land.
10. The Council has powers to:
• for the purpose of draining the highway or preventing surface water from flowing onto it, clean existing drains, or construct new drains, in the highway or adjoining land, as it considers necessary (Highways Act 1980 section 100); and
• serve a notice to a landowner, requiring them to construct or maintain channels, gutters, or pipes to prevent surface water from their land flowing onto the pavement of the highway (Highways Act 1980 section 163).
11. Section 56 of the Highways Act 1980 allows for an individual to serve a notice on a highway authority to repair a highway, including where the reason is due to flooding.
12. Anybody can serve a notice and if the highway authority does not action it the person can apply to the court to for an order to force the authority to take action.
13. Private property owners have a common law duty to ensure their land does not increase the risk of flooding onto neighbouring land. Private landowners are responsible for maintenance of watercourses including drains.

The Council’s Drainage Asset Management Plan

14. The Council works with a contractor, C which looks after its highway maintenance issues. If issues go beyond routine maintenance, C carries out a minor investigation report setting out details and options available. This report is then submitted to the Council for review and a decision on whether works should proceed. The plan also sets out how the Council assesses, prioritises and delivers works, with a clear focus on public safety and the protection of property.
15. The Council’s Drainage Asset Management Plan adopts a risk-based, lifecycle approach to managing drainage assets, focusing resources on the most critical infrastructure and flood-risk areas. Its drainage policy aims to ensure that surface water is effectively removed from roads, footways, and cycleways to minimise safety risks, protect nearby property and infrastructure from water damage, and reduce disruption to residents and businesses by addressing flooding promptly. Reactive repairs are carried out in response to reported incidents such as blocked drains, flooding, or structural damage, with performance standards requiring urgent incidents to be addressed within hours and non-emergency issues within a set timeframe of 28 days.
16. The policy applies only to adopted highways and excludes private drainage systems, unadopted roads, and non-highway assets. When flooding is reported, the Council assesses whether it falls within its responsibility, prioritising action based on the level of risk and impact. High-priority incidents are dealt with urgently, while less critical cases are scheduled for repair in line with policy timescales. The Council acknowledges that not all flooding can be prevented, as extreme weather and third-party systems fall outside its control, but it commits to coordinated responses and collaboration with relevant partners where appropriate.

What happened

17. Mrs X lives on Road A which connects to a public highway, (Road B) that leads to a car park. The car park is owned and managed by a district council, but it is located within the area maintained by the Council which is responsible for Road B. Mrs X says that excess rainwater runs off from the car park into road B from were it flows onto Mrs X’s unadopted road A causing pooling of water.
18. Mrs X first complained about flooding on Road A to the Council in July 2024. The Council responded the same month and arranged a site inspection by its highway maintenance contractor, C. However, the visit took place during dry weather, when no flooding was present, and the Council was unable to observe any issues.
19. The Council asked if Mrs X could provide evidence of the flooding. She submitted photographs, which allowed the Council to escalate the case to a manager for review.
20. In October 2024, Mrs X contacted the Council to request an update on a second site visit and escalated her complaint to stage two.
21. Following the July inspection, C conducted another site visit in November 2024. That same month, the Council issued a stage two complaint response. It upheld Mrs X’s complaint and apologised for the delay in C contacting her. The Council closed her complaint at stage two.
22. Mrs X remained unhappy with the Council’s response and escalated her complaint to stage three. C carried out a further site inspection in February 2025, when drainage engineer attended the meeting.
23. Mrs X requested a report from the February inspection, which she did not receive.
24. Frustrated by the lack of progress, Mrs X complained to us in April 2025.
25. Following our enquiries the Council sent us C’s Minor Investigation Report (MIR) which it submitted in May 2025. The report set out different design options that could be the solution to the drainage problem near Mrs X’s Road A. However, it was decided that further surveys were needed to be able to decide on the best possible solutions to the problem and associated costs.
26. The MIR stated the cause of the water ponding in Mrs X’s road A happens frequently after heavy downpour. The drainage system within the carpark fills up and then back fills out of the closest gully down the carpark ramp into road A. The Council concluded the water runs from the privately owned car park directly down the ramp onto Ms X’s unadopted Road A and does not flow via its Road B. As such, the Council said it had only limited responsibility to resolve the issue. While any required works need to be funded by other parties, the Council offered to help facilitate required works.
27. The Council stated it has no statutory duty or power to address drainage or surface water issues on private land or unadopted roads, as responsibility in such cases rests with the landowner. An exception is when water flow causes damage to the public highway or threatens public safety on the public highway. It decided this exception does not apply in Mrs X’s case and therefore it advised the matter could be resolved through civil action between the private parties involved. For this reason, the Council confirmed that it had not taken or planned to take any further action.

My findings

28. Mrs X contacted the Council in July 2024 and the Council asked its contractor C to investigate the matter. After an initial site inspection during a period of dry weather in July, and despite numerous attempts by Mrs X requesting updates, C only carried out further site inspections in November 2024 and in February 2025, four and seven months after Mrs X first contacted the Council. This delay was fault and caused Mrs X uncertainty and frustration. The Council has already accepted its response times in Mrs X’s case did not meet its usual standards and apologised to Mrs X which remedied her injustice.
29. The Council instructed its contractor to prepare a minor investigation report to help determine whether any remedial works were necessary. The report shows the water runs off from private land onto Road A which is unadopted and therefore not maintained by the Council. These are both areas which the Council does not have responsibility for and as there was no damage to a highway or threat to public safety the Council decided not to take further action. The Council made this decision in line with its procedures how to assess, prioritise and deliver works as set out in its drainage asset management plan. As such, there is no fault in the way the Council reached this decision.
30. However, the Council has accepted fault in that it delayed carrying out the agreed inspections and accepted its response times in Mrs X’s case did not meet its usual standards for which it has already apologised. Further, the Council failed to update Mrs X and inform her of the investigation outcome and its decision not to take further action. This was fault which caused Mrs X frustration and uncertainty.
31. If Mrs X remains unhappy about the Council’s decision not to take further action it is open for her to serve a notice on it or can pursue her concerns through the courts.

Back to top

Action

32. Within one month of the final decision, the Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X in recognition of the frustration and uncertainty caused by its failure to inform her of its decision not to carry out any repair works relating to the drainage issue on her road. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
33. The Council agreed to provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman