Summary: Ms X complained that the Environment Agency failed to take action to force a nearby landowner to carry out remedial works to the riverbank on his land to alleviate flooding to her property. She also says it failed to communicate properly with her. We found no fault by the Environment Agency.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Environment Agency has failed to take action to force an adjoining landowner to carry out remedial works to the riverbank on his land to alleviate flooding to her property. She says it has also failed to communicate properly with her.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information provided by Ms X, made enquiries of the Environment Agency and considered its comments and the documents it provided.
4. Ms X and the Environment Agency had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

5. The Environment Agency (‘the Agency’) is the principal flood risk management authority in England. It is responsible for, amongst other things, forecasting, mapping flood risk and managing the risk of flooding.
6. The Agency has the power to carry out land drainage or flood protection works. All powers relating to flooding and land drainage of permissive, so the Agency does not have a duty to take action. It has to prioritise work based on need and take action using public funds when it considers it justified to do so.

Key facts

7. Ms X lives near a river. In early November 2023 the river flooded Ms X’s property. She telephoned the Environment Agency and spoke to a duty officer. The following day officers visited to gather information and report back on the extent of the flooding.
8. On 6 November Ms X sent an email to the Agency asking why it was not maintaining the stretch of river near her property. She said it used to clear the river of weeds and debris regularly but was no longer doing so. She said her land had never been flooded before even though she had lived there for many years and she had lost her business and livestock.
9. The Agency responded the same day. It said it was arranging an urgent meeting to better understand the maintenance regime in the area and to look at resolving the issue. It said it would be in touch soon.
10. On 8 November an officer visited the site to investigate the scope of work required.
11. On 22 November the Agency wrote to Ms X explaining the work that was to be carried out.
12. In December the Agency’s contractors carried out emergency works to clear vegetation from the river.
13. On 4 January 2024 Ms X contacted the Agency saying her land had been flooded again. She asked it to explain what works had been carried out and when they would be completed. She also asked it to confirm whether the works would resolve the issues and, if not, what it intended to do.
14. On 13 January Ms X sent a further email as she had received no response.
15. On 18 January Ms X sent an email to a specific officer as she had received no response to the emails she had sent to the Agency’s general email address. She said she had also tried telephoning but kept being cut off. She said she felt she was being ignored. Ms X said the recent works to clear the river appeared to have helped, but she had since discovered that the riverbank on land upstream of her property, owned by Mr Y, had been badly eroded by his cattle and that had caused the flooding to her land. She asked the Agency what it intended to do to resolve the situation.
16. The officer responded confirming he had forwarded Ms X’s email to the area manager.
17. On 30 January the Agency wrote to Ms X explaining Mr Y’s responsibilities as landowner and saying its permissive powers could only be used when it was the best use of public money.
18. On 10 February Ms X sent a further email saying she would show the continued flooding to the officer when he visited the following week. She said her livestock had no dry land to go to and were starting to suffer from foot rot. She said the situation was causing her huge distress.
19. The Agency treated Ms X’s email as a formal complaint. It responded on 29 February saying it was the landowner’s duty to maintain the bed and banks of the river. It also said that, as part of its flood risk management programme, it had carried out some targeted vegetation clearance work near Ms X’s land in December 2023 and January 2024.
20. Ms X responded on 12 March saying her main concern was about the riverbank on Mr Y’s land. She asked whether the Agency would carry out remedial works or require Mr Y to do so.
21. The Agency responded on 23 April. It referred to the work carried out in December 2023 and January 2024 to remove weeds and storm debris from the river. It explained that this work was discretionary and it had no duty to carry out maintenance works, dredging or tree clearance. It reiterated that the primary responsibility for the maintenance of the watercourse and its banks lies with the landowner. It said it intended to contact Mr Y to remind him of his responsibilities. It also said it had requested funding to continue vegetation clearance works upstream.
22. Ms X responded saying she was dissatisfied with the response.
23. On 30 April officers met with Mr Y and sent information to him detailing the responsibilities of landowners to maintain the watercourse they own or which passes through their land. They asked him to voluntarily remediate damage to the watercourse. Officers also sought legal advice on enforcement options.
24. The Agency sent a stage 2 response to Ms X’s complaint on 20 May and again explained that the maintenance of the eroded bank upstream from her property was Mr Y’s responsibility. It said it could take enforcement action in certain situations but would only consider doing so when all other possible avenues had been exhausted. It said it would update her when it was able to do so.
25. On 23 May officers met Mr Y on site to discuss what was required of him. As the area is under a conservation scheme which prevents access to machinery except between August and October, Mr Y agreed to carry out the works during this timeframe.
26. In June Ms X complained to the Ombudsman.
27. In September an Agency officer visited Mr Y’s land and found remediation works to the riverbank had not been carried out. The Agency wrote to Mr Y asking him to reinstate the riverbank to its original condition by 31 October failing which it would consider enforcement action. It continued to correspond with Mr Y to ensure the works were arranged. They were eventually completed in November 2024. The Agency also carried out further clearance works adjacent to Mrs X’s land.

Back to top

Analysis

28. The Environment Agency has discretionary enforcement powers. It has no duty to take enforcement action but must consider whether it should use its enforcement powers based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Agency may decide to take informal action or not to act at all. Informal action might include negotiating with the landowner or seeking an assurance that they will complete any necessary works. It will only use these powers when it has exhausted all its processes to obtain the landowner’s agreement to carry out any necessary works voluntarily.
29. In response to Ms X’s concerns, the Agency visited the area to assess the situation and then engaged with Mr Y to make him aware of his responsibilities. A meeting was held on site to discuss what was required and officers continued to liaise with Mr Y to ensure the works were completed to the Agency’s satisfaction.
30. I find no grounds to criticise the Agency’s handling of this matter. As its enforcement powers are discretionary and it must make best use of public funds, there are no grounds to criticise its decision to attempt to resolve the matter informally by obtaining Mr Y’s agreement to carry out the works. It continued to liaise with him to ensure the works were completed to its satisfaction.

Communication

31. Ms X says the Agency delayed in responding to her emails and did not answer her specific questions.
32. I appreciate the Agency did not keep Ms X updated as often as she would have liked, and there were occasions, particularly during January 2024, when it failed to respond to her emails. However, overall, I consider its communication with Ms X was adequate.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I do not uphold Ms X’s complaint.
34. I have completed my investigation on the basis that I am satisfied with the Environment Agency’s actions.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman