The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council are responsible for flooding to the complainant’s property. This is because this is a matter for insurers and then the courts, and because the complaint is made late. Regarding other issues raised, they are either late, better dealt with by the police or there is no evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, who I will call Ms X, complains that the Council are responsible for flooding to her property which first occurred in 2016. She also complains about the Council’s decision to grant planning permission for a park close to her home and how it has dealt with her reports of antisocial behaviour.
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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.
(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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
I will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council are responsible for flooding which resulted in damage to her property and meant she has had to install drainage at additional cost. The issue of flooding first occurred in 2016 and therefore this element of Ms X’s complaint is made late and could have been raised with the Ombudsman sooner. It would also be reasonable to expect Ms X to raise the matter with the courts if she thinks the Council are liable for costs associated with the flooding. Only courts can decide upon matters of liability.
I will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to consult with residents when it installed a splash park close to her home, which Ms X says attracts antisocial behaviour and parking problems outside her home. This is because the splash park has been in situ for a number of years and Ms X could therefore have complained about it sooner. Therefore, this element of her complaint is made late.
I will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council has failed to take enforcement against people parking in the road outside her property. This is because there are no parking restrictions in place on the road or hardstanding in question and therefore, we could not find the Council at fault as it has no powers to take enforcement action.
Finally, I will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council has failed to enforce its antisocial behaviour powers. This is because the issues raised by Ms X are of a criminal nature and are therefore can only be dealt with by the police.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because some elements are late, some are for the courts, some are for the police and some there is no evidence of fault.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman