Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council asking Mr X to clear a watercourse. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council asked him to clear a blockage to a watercourse on his land and threatened legal action without specifying where the blockage was located. He is also unhappy with its complaint handling and its request for personal data.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (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 Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Under section 25 of the Land Drainage Act 1991, where the Council considers an ordinary watercourse is in such a condition that the proper flow of water is impeded, it may serve a notice on the owner seeking they remedy that condition.
7. If the Council serves a notice on Mr X, and he continues to dispute liability, then he has a right of appeal to court under section 27 and it would be reasonable for him to use this.
8. The Council told Mr X it considered the watercourse on his land was blocked and preventing the proper flow of water. Mr X asked for further details including the exact location of any blockage. I do not consider any failure to answer Mr X’s specific questions caused any significant injustice.
9. The Council gave Mr X notice to visit the site under section 64 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 to identify the exact location of the blockage. It was entitled to do so.
10. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or that any fault caused significant injustice. While I acknowledge Mr X is concerned about the Council’s threats to take action, he will have the right to appeal any notice issued. Any separable remaining injustice is not significant enough to justify an investigation.
11. Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s requests for personal data are better dealt with by the Information Commissioner. Therefore I will not investigate.
12. It is not a proportionate use of our resources to investigate the Council’s communications or complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issues.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault causing significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman