Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about blocked gullies. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating. Also, it is reasonable to expect the complainant to use the alternative court remedy to address his highway maintenance concerns.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains about the Council’s handling of his requests to clear blocked gullies in front of his property. He says the Council told him the gullies would be cleared under its scheduled programme during summer 2026. Mr Y is unhappy with the Council’s definition of “emergency circumstances” under its policy on blocked drains, which does not cover risk of flooding to detached garages, outhouses, gardens and driveways. He says the Council is in breach of the Highways Act 1980.

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 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In November 2025, Mr Y contacted the Council about blocked gullies outside his property and on the opposite side of the road. He said water was flooding up to his gate and onto his property.
8. The Council refused to inspect or clear the gullies because it decided there was not an imminent danger of flooding to Mr Y’s home. In these circumstances, the Council said it would complete cleaning of the gullies in line with its cyclical cleaning programme for gullies. This decision is in line with Council’s policy on gulley cleaning. The Council later confirmed its drainage team expected to inspect and clean the gullies in Mr Y’s area during the summer 2026. For these reasons, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
9. There is no statutory timescale for clearing highway gullies. Most highway authorities have a schedule of maintenance according to the type of road and any previous flooding affecting property. They also have a reactive service for reported cases of blockages. This is the service which the Council has implemented by way of its cyclic cleaning programme and it is for the highway authority to arrange this. The Council has decided, due to its limited resources, its reactive service will respond to reports of blocked gullies only in emergency circumstances. This includes imminent risk of internal flooding to domestic properties (but not outhouses, garages, driveways and gardens). It is for the Council to decide how it uses its resources. It has clearly explained its reasons for operating a cyclic cleaning programme. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.
10. Furthermore, the local highways authority has a statutory duty to maintain adopted streets. They are expected to routinely monitor the state of highways, depending on their classification and carry out repairs where necessary. But, the level of maintenance, frequency of inspection, and threshold for repair is not set out in law and is open to interpretation.
11. If a person considers that a highways authority has failed to maintain a highway it is responsible for, the person affected can apply to the Magistrates court for an order to be made under section 56 of the Highways Act 1980. This order requires the highways authority to carry out the work needed to the highway.
12. If the highways authority does not respond in time, or does not accept it is responsible for maintaining the road, the person may apply to the Crown court for such an order.
13. Mr Y may use this process to try to get the Council to repair the drainage issues on the roads he refers to. The court is in the best position to decide whether the Council has met its legal duty to maintain the highway. Also, unlike the Ombudsman, the court can order the Council to do the required work, so it is better placed than us to consider the complaint. We will therefore not investigate Mr Y’s complaint that the Council has breached the Act because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to use this alternative court remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about blocked gullies. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify investigating. Also, it is reasonable to expect the complainant to use the alternative court remedy to address his highway maintenance concerns.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman