Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about flooding to a highway outside her home. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to the Council’s response or achieve a different outcome for Miss X.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to respond appropriately to a serious highways and drainage issue which has caused flooding. She says despite repeated reports, it did not treat the matter as an emergency, resulting in loss of safe access to her home and creating risks for emergency services. Miss X wants the Council to recognise its failings, investigate, set up an urgent plan to restore safe access, and provide suitable redress.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• 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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council explained to Miss X it had carried out drainage works in the area and identified further clearance work which it would schedule within its planned works programme. It said it prioritises drainage and maintenance works using a county-wide, evidence-led, risk-based approach and that her location was not among its highest priorities. The Council also explained it considers it is meeting its duties under the Highways Act 1980. It said not all flooding can be prevented and the Act does not require uninterrupted access at all times, meaning temporary loss of access can occur during flooding events.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision because someone disagrees with it. Instead, we consider whether the organisation followed the correct process in reaching its decision. Where there is no evidence of fault in that process, we cannot question the merits of the decision itself.
8. Miss X disagrees with the Council's assessment of the seriousness of the flooding and considers it should have treated the matter as an emergency. However, the evidence shows the Council was aware of the issue, inspected the location, carried out some drainage works, identified further works and considered the matter under its risk-based maintenance arrangements. We are unlikely to question the Council's professional judgement about how it prioritised resources unless there is evidence the decision-making process was flawed. There is not enough evidence of fault in its decision-making process to justify investigating.
9. The Council explained that responsibility for some roadside ditches may rest with adjoining landowners rather than the highway authority. It has agreed to review ownership and, where appropriate, contact landowners about maintenance responsibilities. The Council has also identified further drainage works, set up local arrangements to review recurring drainage concerns, and arranged for a manager to discuss Miss X's wider concerns with her. Given these actions, it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add to the Council's response or achieve a different outcome for Miss X.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault and an investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to add to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman