Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with his requests to carry out work on the drainage system and repair the road, near his home. This is because any injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X said the Council was negligent because it hasn’t done enough to prevent flooding at his home. He said this, because he believes the culvert system on the road near his home is ineffective and said the Council has allowed the drainage ditch to overflow. He also said the Council have not done enough repair the road surface and prevent it blocking the drainage ditch.
2. Mr X said this has caused his distress and damage to his home. He wants the Council to maintain their property.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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. In 2022 we issued a final decision relating to a previous complaint Mr X made about several matters, including the Council’s repairs to its culvert system on the road near to his home. Mr X was unhappy with work the Council carried out and we advised him we could not decide on that point. Consequently, I will not consider this part of Mr X’s complaint.
7. Subsequently, Mr X told the Council about further ongoing concerns and raised numerous service requests, about the maintenance of his road and the drainage ditch. I have not considered the Council’s response to these requests individually. This is because any injustice there may be about how the Council responded to each of those requests, does not meet the threshold to warrant further consideration. However, I have considered the Council’s overall response to his broad concerns in line with his complaint to us.
8. Mr X made a complaint about the Council’s response saying he was concerned that:
• The culvert was ineffective, and the ditch could overflow;
• the Council hadn’t adequately used its enforcement powers, and;
• the road was breaking up and would eventually block the drainage ditch.
9. The Council told Mr X it had carried out a site visit in relation to his concerns about road damage and arranged to complete some work along the drainage ditch. It also inspected the drainage system on two occasions and did not identify any defect.
10. Councils as highway authorities have a duty under the Highways Act 1980 to ensure that the highway is kept clear for the free movement of traffic and pedestrians. This includes maintaining drainage to prevent the carriageway from being obstructed by standing water.
11. However, this duty relates only to the drainage of the highway itself and the duty does not extend to adjacent land or buildings. Landowners are normally expected to make provision for their own drainage and any damage caused by run-off from the highway would be a civil matter which would involve the affected owner submitting a claim against the highway authority.
12. Mr X said he was concerned about the possibility of flooding because of poor maintenance of both the drainage system and the road, but the evidence shows the Council responded and decided on the action it needed to take to carry out its duty. There is not a significant injustice to Mr X in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman