Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s contractor blocking a foul water drain, and the Council referring his legal liability claim for damages to its contractor’s insurer. There is insufficient significant injustice to him from the Council directing his claim to the contractor’s insurer to justify us investigating. It would not be unreasonable for Mr X put his claim to the Council’s insurer, then to the courts if required, to pursue the decision and outcomes he seeks.

The complaint

1. Mr X had problems with a blocked wastewater drain serving his property. He complains:
1. the Council’s contractor blocked a foul water drain serving his property with material it when resurfacing the road in 2024;
2. the Council referred him to its contractor to make a claim against them for issues caused by the blockage.
2. Mr X says toilet water filled to the rim and drained very slowly and the bathroom smelled for several months. He says there were frequent very loud noises in pipework around the house. Mr X says his lawn was soaked, a puddle formed near his garage, and there was a strong smell in the garden. He says he and his family spent two hours cleaning up spillages, using equipment they had to buy. Mr X is frustrated the Council has not accepted accountability and that he spent time and was put to trouble dealing with the Council’s contractor.
3. Mr X wants an apology which shows accountability by the Council, and compensation for the spills, wear and tear on pipework, costs of clean-up equipment, and the time, trouble and frustration from pursuing the matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mr X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Councils are responsible for the work done by their contractors when they are acting on behalf of a council. Any claim of damage caused by a council’s contractors’ work is for the council to consider under its own insurance. If a council finds its contractor is responsible for a claim made to its officers, it may then seek redress from its contractor under the terms of its contract. If the Council did not accept and process an insurance claim from Mr X regarding the drain, requiring him to go through its contractor’s insurance process instead, that would be fault.
8. Mr X has had some avoidable time and trouble from being sent through the contractor’s insurance process. However, this would not be a sufficiently significant injustice to him stemming from Council fault to justify us investigating. We recognise the contractor’s process took some time and work for Mr X to pursue. But a claim to the Council’s insurer would have required a similar amount and type of effort. Mr X may still submit a claim to the Council’s insurer to get the outcome he seeks, using the information he has gathered when making the claim to the contractor. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X from this issue to warrant us investigating.
9. At its core, Mr X’s complaint is one of negligence by the Council’s contractor causing the blockage. It is Mr X’s claim that this blockage led to impacts on his property, causing associated inconveniences and costs, as set out in paragraph two above. Mr X says the water company has confirmed material used to resurface the road was the cause of the drain blockage. He considers the Council should be responsible for the results of this for his property and family. That is a claim of legal liability for damages. We cannot make such findings. Only insurers and the courts can decide if someone is legally liable for a claim of damages.
10. Mr X may first lodge his claim with the Council’s own insurers. If the claim is not accepted or resolved to his satisfaction, he can place it before the courts to pursue the accountability and financial remedy he seeks. It would not be unreasonable for Mr X to follow this route as the court would then be the only body with the expertise and standing to make decisions on legal liability matters. Furthermore, the courts can make rulings which are binding on the parties, whereas we can only issue recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is insufficient significant injustice to him from the Council referring his damages claim to its contractor’s insurer to justify us investigating; and
• it would not be unreasonable for him make his legal liability for damages claim to the Council’s insurer, then to the courts if required, to pursue the decision and outcomes he seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman