The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr B complained that the Council failed to unblock drains outside his property which were flooding the road creating a hazardous situation. It also failed to repair the road where it had eroded. We have not found fault with Council’s actions.
The complaint
Mr B complained that Lincolnshire County Council (the Council) failed to unblock a drain or repair the road outside Mr B’s property, creating a dangerous hazard for road users. Neither had it provided a timescale for completing the repairs. This was causing Mr B frustration and concern about potential accidents.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
Highway asset management plan This document sets out the Council’s procedure and priorities for dealing with highway issues. It says it as Highway Authority is responsible for the maintenance of highway drains which carry water discharged form the carriageway. It says gullies will be cleared one a year on a cyclical basis.
It contains a table given a timescale for dealing with standing water on the carriageway. For roads classed as hierarchy 5, 6, 7 or 8 this is a potential planned programme. For roads with a higher status including main roads the timescales range from 24 hours to 28 days.
Hierarchy 5 roads are unclassified roads which in rural areas link the smaller villages to the distributor roads. They are of varying width and not always capable of carrying two-way traffic.
The plan also states that it repairs safety defects where there is a collapsed verge or the defect is more than 40 mm in depth encroaching more than 100 mm into the metalled edge of a carriageway.
What happened Mr B lives on an unclassified road in a rural area. He reported to the Council in October 2021 that the drains outside his property were blocked and after heavy rain the road would flood causing a dangerous situation. The Council visited the site and took photos of the drains but did not witness any water on the road. It agreed to jet the drains but not as a priority. It said the works would be undertaken in due course as part of an off-programme jetting scheme (work outside the Council’s normal cycle) Mr B’s partner Mrs B telephoned the Council at the beginning of November to query why no work had been done. She said there were several drains affected and when it rained heavily, water covered the whole road and took over an hour to clear.
In February 2022 Mr B complained to the Council that the work had not been done, that some of the road and his garden had eroded meaning cars were driving across his front garden. Recently a van had skidded in the water and collided with bushes in his garden. He had placed cones in front of his garden to warn drivers.
The Council responded saying that the job was scheduled in its programme of works, but contractors had been struggling with resource levels. Due to recent weather, they had prioritised areas where properties had been flooded but it confirmed that the drains would be cleared with high pressure jetting. It apologised for the delay.
Mr B escalated his complaint to stage two of the complaints procedure. The Council repeated its view that the case had been assessed and a job raised to unblock the drains, but more serious cases and emergencies had to take precedence.
Mr B complained to us. He said the Council had given no timescale for the work and were ignoring the soil erosion.
In response to my enquiries the Council said the work was completed in May 2022. Mr B said that the erosion has not been dealt with.
In response to my enquiries the Council assessed the state of the road but did not agree with Mr B’s assessment that a large section of road was missing or that the road was dangerous. It said it did not meet the criteria for repair as a safety defect and the edge of the road had not moved. It agreed the grass had died off.
Analysis I understand Mr B’s frustration with the situation outside his property. But I have not identified any fault with the way in which the Council dealt with the issue. It visited the site promptly, assessed the problem and raised a job for work to be done to clear the drains and the gully outside of its normal cycle. It completed the work seven months later.
Given the status of Mr B’s road and the nature of the problem, I consider the Council followed the priorities in its highways asset management plan and understandably dealt with more urgent problems caused by flooding first.
As Mr B said the water cleared in a relatively short space of time, it is unlikely that the Council would have witnessed any standing water even if it had revisited after the second complaint was raised in February 2022.
In respect of the road erosion the Council has assessed the road from the photographs provided by Mr B and from historical information on the internet and assessed it in accordance with its policy for repair. It does not consider it meets the criteria for repair and does not consider it is dangerous. Mr B disagrees with this, but it is not my role to comment on a decision which has been made without fault.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation into this complaint as I am unable to find fault causing injustice in the actions of the Council towards Mr B.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman