Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about drainage because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and the courts and insurers are better placed to deal with the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council has failed to repair drainage issues near his property despite his requests, which has led to it flooding and being at risk of flooding again.
2. Mr Y says his property has been damaged, his house value potentially diminished, and he is worried about being flooded again and the impact of that on his family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The legislation from which the Ombudsman takes their power also places some restrictions on what we may investigate. One of these concerns negligence claims about damage to property or personal injury. We cannot determine liability claims for negligence. These are legal claims which may only be determined by insurers or the courts.
7. Mr Y says the damage caused to his property has a cost of £20,000 approximately. He is concerned the flooding will recur, at a further cost for repairs to his home.
8. We are not able to decide liability or award damages. Mr Y has already begun a claim against the Council’s insurer. If he is unhappy with any offer made by the insurer or wishes to challenge any denial of liability by the Council, he would need to pursue this in the courts. Given the courts ability to consider such claims, any claim for damages, such as costs for repairs, which Mr Y considers the Council to be responsible for, are matters more appropriately dealt with by the courts. We will not investigate this complaint.
9. Further, the Council has investigated the problem with the drainage near Mr Y’s home. It has evaluated the risk of the defect and determined that the repair is not urgent and is not a high priority in accordance with its policy. As the Council has made the decision having inspected and based on relevant factors, it has made the decision properly, even though Mr Y disagrees with the outcome.
10. Consequently, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation and we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating and the courts and insurers are better placed to deal with the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman