The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his concerns relating to a pipe which runs under this property. This is because we cannot determine the Council’s responsibility for the pipe or its liability for any damage and its delay in issuing its final decision not to carry out remedial works did not cause Mr X significant injustice.
The complaint
The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council delayed in dealing with his concerns about a drainage pipe which runs under his property. He also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 Mr X’s representative, Mrs Y, and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
At the heart of this complaint is a dispute over ownership and liability for maintaining the pipe which runs under Mr X’s property. Mr X believes the Council is responsible for the pipe and that it may have damaged it when carrying out work to deal with an issue in 2021.
It is not our role to determine the Council’s liability for any damage to Mr X’s property, or for carrying out remedial works to the pipe when it disputes that it has any responsibility for it. These are matters for the courts.
Mr X complains the Council took too long to clarify its position regarding ownership/liability but this is a secondary issue which I could not say caused Mr X significant injustice.
The Council agreed to explore the possibility of helping Mr X by carrying out repairs to the pipe as a gesture of goodwill but ultimately decided the cost of this was too great. There was never any guarantee it would resolve the issue but Mr X clearly considered it was worth chasing the Council on the basis it might.
Had the Council reached its decision not to carry out any remedial works sooner Mr X may have been aware of the need to resolve the issue himself at an earlier date but I have seen nothing to suggest the decision itself would have been different. The remaining options to resolve the issue are still available to Mr X and I do not therefore consider the delay caused him significant injustice for which we would recommend a remedy.
Mr X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint. This is because we cannot determine the Council’s liability for any issues with the pipe and its delay in reaching a decision about whether to carry out remedial works did not cause him significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman