The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to highway flooding near his home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to address highway flooding causing run-off onto his property when he made a highways report. He says the Council’s inspection was inadequate and it failed to take action to clear silt from a nearby pond from which the flooding originated.
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: 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X called out the Council’s highways team when the road next to his home became flooded following heavy rain. He says he had to clear blocked drainage caused by silt from a nearby pond which he says belongs to the highway authority.
When a highway officer inspected the site Mr X says he did not see him leave his vehicle and he expected that the pond would be inspected, and the silt cleared to prevent further blockage of the drainage system. When he complained the Council told him that the officer had visited the site and the pond, which is outside Mr X’s view from his property. It said call-outs prioritise flooding which is causing threats to property and the carriageway. When the officer visited Mr X had already cleared the blockage and there was no standing water observed. It says that in such cases, particularly on minor roads such as this, drainage clearing will be carried out on a planned maintenance basis where there is no immediate flooding visible.
Mr X says the pond is the source of the drainage failures and the Council should clear this.
The Council as highway authority has a duty under the Highways Act 1980 to keep the carriageway clear of obstructions and this requires it to prevent flooding of the road where possible. The duty does not extend to adjacent property and any damage caused by run-off would be a civil matter. When no flooding was observed on the highway the Council decided there was no further action required.
Mr X could submit a claim against the Council for any damage to his property associated with run-off from the highway or the pond. There is insufficient evidence that the inspection which the Council carried out was inadequate for the report of highway flooding.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to highway flooding near his home. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman