Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s maintenance of highway drains because it is reasonable for the complainant to go to court.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains on behalf of Mr X. Miss X complains the Council failed to address highway disrepair resulting in either flood damage to property or the risk of it. Ms X says the issues make it difficult to sell the property.
2. Miss X also complains about the Council’s complaints handling.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We 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)
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)
6. 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Miss X or Mr Y have made complaints to the Council about highway drain and flood concerns since 2023. This complaint was brought to us in February 2026 and I have seen no reason a complaint could not have been brought to us sooner. So the restriction in paragraph 4 applies and we cannot consider the Council’s actions prior to 2025.
10. In November 2025, Miss X reported further concerns about the highway drains. The Council investigated these concerns and acted to make sure the drains were serviceable. The Council also identified further non-emergency works and told Miss X it would do those works in the next financial year, if budgets allowed. I am satisfied the Council investigated Miss X’s complaint and took remedial action it considered reasonable.
11. The Council as a local highways’ authority has a statutory duty to maintain adopted streets. The Council is expected to routinely monitor the state of highways, depending on their classification and carry out repairs where necessary. This includes ensuring drainage is in good repair. But the level of maintenance, frequency of inspection, and threshold for repair is not set out in law and is open to interpretation. The Ombudsman cannot compel the Council to do any more than it has done, so an investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.
12. Miss X is dissatisfied with the Council’s response to her concerns. Mr Y has the right to apply to a Magistrates’ court for an order requiring the Council to take whatever action is needed to bring a highway up to standard.
13. Only the courts can decide whether the Council has maintained the highway properly or is liable for any damage to property due to a failure to repair the highway. The law also gives the Council the right to defend in court against any claims. It is therefore reasonable for Mr Y to go to court and so I will not investigate.
14. It is not a proportionate use of our resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling, including its handling of reasonable adjustments, when we are not investigating the substantive issues.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate this complaint because it is reasonable for the complainant to go to court.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman