The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about the Council’s maintenance of surface water drainage facilities near the complainant’s home. This is because the Council has now completed its work to upgrade and clear the drainage facility, and there is nothing of significance an investigation could add here.
The complaint
I will refer to the complainant as Mr B.
Mr B complains the Council has failed to properly maintain surface water drainage facilities near his home for a significant period of time. This means the area is prone to flooding during incidents of heavy rain.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I reviewed Mr B’s correspondence with the Council, a chronology compiled by the Council, along with a selection of other Council records.
I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.
What I found
Mr B’s home is on a residential street in the Council’s area. The surface water drainage for the street, and others nearby, feeds into a system of pipes leading to a nearby ‘flood plain’ or ‘lagoon’. This is a small green area, the purpose of which is to hold the excess water and allow it to drain away slowly, without causing a flood.
Mr B said the Council’s maintenance program for the flood plain and drainage system had not been properly carried out for approximately 15 years. This has allowed the pipes to become blocked and the flood plain overgrown, meaning surface water was backing up instead of draining away, and causing the road to flood.
In 2020 the Council began to address this. It held meetings with Mr B and other residents, and proposed works to resolve the problem. This included clearing the flood plain and the existing pipes, as well as installing a new one (which would cross land owned by third parties, and therefore require their agreement).
Mr B complained to the Council in April and May 2021, and then to the Ombudsman, in July, as he was dissatisfied with the slow progress of the work and what he felt was a poor level of contact with the Council’s new highways manager.
In response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed the work was completed in November.
Analysis I propose to discontinue my investigation.
Mr B says the Council’s staff members responsible for maintaining the system had, for approximately 15 years, failed to actually carry out their duties. He says, when the Council identified this, staff members were disciplined.
I have no other information about this point. Either way, the law says a person should approach the Ombudsman within 12 months of becoming aware of an issue they wish to complain about. Mr B approached us in July 2021, meaning anything that happened before July 2020 is out of time. I will therefore not consider the historic elements here.
Mr B considers the Council was dilatory in completing the remedial work. However, I have seen a timeline of the works produced by the Council. I appreciate it took some time to complete, but there is no obvious point where the Council allowed the matter to drift in 2020 or 2021. Mr B has expressed clear ideas about how he considers this matter should have been managed; but it is not for him, nor for me, to direct the Council to work in a particular manner.
And, regardless of this, the work has now been completed. Intervention by us could not now affect this, and so there is little value to an investigation. As explained previously, we are a publicly-funded body, and are required to consider what an investigation could achieve before starting or completing one.
Mr B says one of the pipes the Council has installed is smaller than the one it proposed, and that it lacks a ‘flapper valve’ to prevent the ingress of wildlife. He complains this change in plan was not communicated to him.
I acknowledge Mr B’s concerns here, but again, it is not for me to decide on the technicalities of the drainage system and whether it is fit for purpose. Any suggestion this might be a problem is therefore speculative, and not something I can consider. It may have been helpful for Mr B if the Council had informed him of the change of plan, but I do not see it was under any obligation to do so – this was the Council’s project, carried out on land which did not belong to Mr B. So I do not consider this issue to be significant enough to justify further investigation.
Mr B also complains the Council has not informed him of its ongoing maintenance plan for the flood plain and associated assets. However, the Council provided me with the plan and I have now forwarded a copy to Mr B.
Finally, Mr B also complains he found it hard to contact the Council’s new highways manager, who replaced the previous manager at the beginning of 2021.
I understand Mr B had a lot of contact with the previous manager, and may have expected this to continue with his replacement. But this does not mean the new manager was personally obliged to keep Mr B updated on the progress of the project or answer his questions, and this is not something I would likely find fault by the Council for.
Taking this all together, I am not persuaded there is any benefit to further investigation here.
Final decision
I have discontinued my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman