Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint about a statutory nuisance. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. Parts of the complaint are late, there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify investigating, and we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has failed to properly investigate his report of a water nuisance.
2. He says the council failed to deal with the matter within a reasonable timeframe, allowing continuing damage for six years.
3. Mr X wants the Council to make his neighbour move their down water pipe to prevent further damage.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)

6. We investigate 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 continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mr X including the Council’s responses to his complaint.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The law says a complaint must be made to the Ombudsman within 12 months of the person becoming aware of the problem. Therefore I consider any concerns about events occurring before 2023 are late. We have seen no reason why Mr X could not have complained to us about these events sooner.
10. Mr X complained to the Council in 2023 about penetrating and rising damp in his home caused by a blocked and overflowing rainwater pipe belonging to the property next door.
11. The Council says officers visited the property within ten days and did not observe obvious external issues. It says it checked its building control and planning enforcement records and found no record of structural work in the next-door property. This indicated work was carried out before 2008 and is therefore immune from enforcement action.
12. The Council confirms it tried to contact the neighbour several times. In December it obtained ownership details from the Land Registry and wrote to the owner of the next-door property.
13. In January, officers visited the site again. There was no evidence of a blocked pipe. They met Mr X, and he showed them the damp inside his home which supported his claims of a problem with the rainwater pipe. They tried to visit the neighbour again without success.
14. The Council arranged for a drainage contractor to inspect the rainwater pipes. The contractor noted the pipe was blocked. He jetted the pipe to clear the blockage. The Council confirms the rainwater pipe was left clear and free flowing.
15. The contractor recommended changes to the pipe to prevent further blockages and installing a grill to prevent debris falling in.
16. The Council confirms:
• the pipes were left clear and free flowing
• there was no evidence of subsoil water; and
• drainage was not unsatisfactory.

Therefore, it could not issue a notice requiring the neighbour to take action.

17. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council confirmed It had provided quotes from his contractor to move the down pipe. And if Mr X wanted to proceed with the work it would attempt to contact the neighbour to arrange access for the contractor to complete the work. It also told Mr X to report further blockages, as this would provide evidence of recurring problems, and not an isolated incident. It said this may enable the Council to serve a notice on the neighbour.

18. I understand Mr X is not satisfied with the Council’s actions. However, it has:
• Inspected the site.
• Arranged for the rainwater pipe to be jetted and cleared.
• Tried multiple times to contact the owner of the neighbouring property.
• Obtained a quote from the contractor for moving the pipe and offered to contact the neighbour if Mr X wanted to proceed. And;
• Advised Mr X to report further instances of pipe blockages.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• Complaints about events occurring before 2023 are made too late.
• There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council considered complaints about events from 2023 onwards to justify an investigation. And;
• Mr X wants the Council to order the neighbour to move the rainwater pipe. This is not something we can achieve.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman