Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint about the Council’s management of its highway drainage system. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation or achieve anything more. If Mr C considers the Council’s actions have caused damage to his property, it is reasonable for him to make a claim through the Council’s insurers and, if unhappy with the outcome, take the matter to court.

The complaint

1. Mr C complains about the Council’s management of its highway drainage system near his home. He says this has caused flooding which has damaged parts of his home. He wants the Council to apologise, pay compensation, and fund a permanent resolution for the drainage problems.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr C complained the Council had known about flooding near his home for a long time and accepted its drainage system was inadequate but had not resolved this.
6. In its complaint response, the Council said it had reviewed its handling of flooding incident reports near Mr C’s home. It explained it had categorised the incidents as minor or moderate and taken action in line with its policy, such as work to clear gullies.
7. The Council said it had formally reviewed the site near Mr C’s home to determine its level of priority for funding and development. It said its assessment found the site was low priority against 71 other schemes. It said it needed to prioritise other works first, in order to meet its highway maintenance responsibilities.
8. The Council said it had identified a third party’s intersecting water sewer was close to capacity and this caused more frequent blockages in the drainage system. It accepted it had not contacted the third party about this matter for some time. It agreed it would do so within two weeks, to work to resolve this issue.
9. The Council also said it had not been able to clean the additional drainage assets it had installed for the site. It accepted this meant it had not met its responsibilities to maintain its drainage systems. It said it aimed to find a solution and implement this within six months. It also said it would continue to monitor the frequency of its cleaning schedule for other parts of the drainage system.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. It appears the Council has appropriately investigated the flooding incident reports and Mr C’s concerns. It has explained to Mr C what action it took and its reasons for not taking further action. Where it has identified and accepted fault, it has also outlined what corrective action it will take and a timeline. It is unlikely our involvement would add to this or achieve anything more.
11. If Mr C considers the Council’s actions have caused damage to his property, it is open to him to make a claim through the Council’s insurers and, if dissatisfied with the outcome, take the matter to court. Only a court can decide whether the Council is liable for any damage and if so, whether to award compensation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint because it is unlikely we could add to or achieve more than the Council’s investigation. If he considers the Council liable for damage to his property, it is reasonable for him to make a claim through the Council’s insurers and if unhappy with the outcome, take the matter to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman