Summary: There was no fault in how the Council responded to Mr X’s report about a dangerous structure, or his report about poor drainage. It responded in line with expectations. There was some fault in how the Council first dealt with Mr X’s complaints. This has caused an injustice and the Council has agreed to pay Mr X a financial remedy for this injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council did not properly respond to unblock and repair the drains near his home after he made repeated requests in 2021 and 2022.
2. Mr X also says the Council did not respond to his report about a dangerous television aerial on a neighbouring property.
3. Mr X says he was inconvenienced and incurred expense, because he was constantly chasing the Council about what was happening.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. Mr X told me he reported other blocked drains on a nearby road. This road is not in the immediate area of where Mr X lives, so he has not suffered a personal injustice in the Council’s actions. Because of this, I have not investigated the Council’s response to those reports.
5. Mr X told me he had reported problems with drains outside his home over a long period. The Council was aware of an anonymous report made in 2019 and a report Mr X made in June 2020. I will not investigate how the Council responded then, because this is a late complaint and there are no good reasons why Mr X could not have complained to us sooner.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
7. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
8. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
9. 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)
10. 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

11. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint and considered the information he sent.
12. I considered the Council responses to Mr X and the information they sent to me.
13. Mr X and the Council 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

What should have happened

Dangerous structure

14. The Building Act 1984 gives a council the power to act when a building or part of a building is dangerous. Section 77 allows the Council to apply to the magistrate’s court for an order in non-urgent cases. In urgent cases, Section 78 allows a council to act on its own initiative.

Drainage response

15. The Council said it will respond to reports of drain blockages within 28 days or, if water was standing, within five days.

Complaint handling

16. The Council’s complaint procedure has two stages. In the first stage it says it aims to complete investigations within 28 days. It also says a manager will contact the complainant to discuss their complaint.
17. If the Council is asked to review its first response, a more senior manager will do this. The Council’s website says it aims to carry out a review within 28 days and will write back to a complainant with the outcome.

What happened

Dangerous structure

18. Mr X contacted the Council in mid-May 2022, to report that a television aerial at a neighbouring property was ‘hanging off the roof’. Mr X told me his concern was the aerial could fall off the roof and injure a pedestrian if it fell onto the footpath.
19. The Council recorded Mr X’s report as a ‘dangerous structure’ and gave the report to an officer for further investigation for a response within 20 days.
20. Later that month, within 20 days, a Council officer returned and made a note the aerial had collapsed and was laying at the edge of the roof.
21. The following day, the Council sent a notice to the owner of the property, asking them to remove the aerial within 14 days.
22. The Council also contacted Mr X that day to give him an update. Mr X said he was unhappy with the response because he had initially reported the matter around two months before.
23. Once the 14-day notice to owner period had passed, the Council revisited the location and made a note the aerial was no longer there.

Drainage response

24. This Council has outsourced its highway maintenance function to a private contractor.
25. Mr X contacted the contractor in January 2021 to report a blocked and overflowing drain outside his home. He told the contractor he had previously reported this same issue.
26. The contractor noted this contact as a service request and staff attended within two hours and cleared the gully. The staff said the drain was now working properly.
27. In mid-February 2022, Mr X made a further report about blocked drains. Engineers carried out a site inspection before the end of February and planned to return the following week to carry out work.
28. The engineers identified a blockage and cleared the drains in early March.
29. The contractor sent me information they had previously responded to two anonymous reports of blocked drains on Mr X’s road as follows;
• two reports on 23 January 2021, responded to on 15 and 18 February; and
• one report on 18 February 2021, responded to on 16 March.
30. During the complaint correspondence, Mr X told the contractor the poor drainage had caused damage to his cellar area. The contractor invited Mr X to send it a claim for damages, but Mr X has not done so.
31. Mr X has not provided any other evidence of the disruption the blocked drains caused.

Complaint handling

32. Mr X made a complaint to the Council in late January 2022. In that complaint he told the Council about various poor services, including drainage. Mr X also said he had previously approached staff working on his road and asked them to look at the drains near his home. Mr X told the Council they refused and were dismissive.
33. He also referred to poor complaint handling because he had not had a proper response to an earlier complaint he made in early January.
34. The Council sent the complaint to the contractor in late January. The contractor responded to Mr X with an acknowledgement in early February. The acknowledgement said it would investigate Mr X’s complaint and planned to reply to him by late February. The person investigating did not speak to Mr X about his complaint.
35. In mid-February, Mr X made contact about his blocked drains and the Council made a note he had a live complaint waiting for a response, with the contractor.
36. Before the complaint deadline was due, the contractor sent a holding response to Mr X acknowledging his earlier call and gave him an updated planned response date by late March. It followed this up again before that deadline with another holding response, explaining it would send him a response or another update before late April.
37. The contractor sent Mr X an initial response in early April about the issues he raised. The contractor apologised that Mr X had not always had a prompt response to his calls. Mr X then asked for a review at stage two.
38. The contractor acknowledged Mr X’s request and agreed to review his complaint. It said it would aim to respond to him by early May. Mr X called the contractor to speak to them about his complaint.
39. In early May, the contractor sent Mr X a holding response saying it would update him within two weeks.
40. By that date, the contractor sent Mr X a final response. It said a manager had not contacted Mr X because they were trying to coordinate a response about the range of issues he was complaining about.
41. It acknowledged when Mr X approached their staff in the road to report an issue with drains, they should have made a record of his contact and they had not. It apologised for the inconvenience.

My findings

Dangerous structure

42. The legislation allows for the Council to act depending on the urgency of the response needed. Mr X was concerned about an imminent danger; however, the location was visited by an officer within the Council’s expected response times from the time of Mr X’s contact in May. There is no evidence Mr X reported this to the Council before May.
43. The officer decided a non-urgent response was appropriate. We would not criticise a decision by a council officer who has used their professional judgement to decide on a response.
44. Similarly, it is not unreasonable for the Council to ask the property owner to remove a dangerous structure before it considers legal action, and I can see no fault in how the Council responded.

Drainage response

45. Mr X complained in his own right about blocked drains on his road in mid-January 2021 and then again in February 2022. The contractor’s evidence shows it was aware of blocked drains on Mr X’s road, because it had a record of anonymous reports from late January and February 2021.
46. In relation to the 2021 report Mr X made, the contractor responded that day.
47. Of the report Mr X made in 2022, the contractor responded by carrying out a site visit and arranging to complete work within the expected timescales of 28 days.
48. Several calls about the same issue does not mean there was a fault. There is no information that the Council’s responses were not carried out effectively. Given the large period between the 2021 and 2022 reports, it is not unreasonable to expect a drain to become blocked over time.

Complaint handling

49. The Council’s complaints procedure says it aims to complete an investigation within 28 days. The Council took longer than this period to complete both stages of Mr X’s complaint.
50. However, this did not amount to fault. Mr X complained about a wide range of issues, meaning this was not a straightforward complaint investigation. The contractor kept Mr X updated on its progress and its responses appear reasonable.
51. The Council did not properly take action on Mr X’s initial complaint in early January, and this caused a delay in the contractor responding. This was fault.
52. The Council was also at fault for not contacting Mr X to discuss his complaint when it decided to investigate. I note Mr X made efforts to speak to the manager during the investigation.
53. Mr X spoke to staff working in his road about his drainage concerns and they did not make a record of this. I note the contractor has apologised for this and that is appropriate.
54. However, this incident, coupled with the faults in the initial complaint handling, will have likely added to a perception Mr X had about the Council not properly acting on his concerns. He went to additional effort to contact the Council about his complaint.
55. This has caused an injustice to Mr X and the Council should make a remedy payment to recognise this injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

56. Within four weeks, the Council has agreed to pay Mr X £100 to recognise his time and trouble.
57. The Council should let us know when it has made the payment.

Back to top

Final decision

58. There was fault in how the Council initially handled Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman