Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of reports of flooding in the complainant’s garden, and its handling of his associated complaints. There are other bodies better placed to consider the main issues being complained about, we cannot become involved in the parts of the complaint about disciplinary action, and we would not investigate any concerns about the Council’s complaints process in isolation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his reports of flooding in his garden, which he believes was caused by a blocked drain in the road outside his house, and its handling of his associated complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We can 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. So, we do not start an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) & (7), as amended, section 34(B))

4. The law also 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)
5. Similarly, the Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
6. And again, we normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
7. As noted in paragraph 3 above, we can look at organisational fault, but we cannot look at individual professional competence. Decisions about an individual’s fitness to practise or work are for the organisations concerned, and for professional regulators, not the Ombudsman. We also cannot recommend that an organisation take disciplinary action against its staff. (Local Government Act 1974, s26(1) and s26A(1) as amended).
8. And it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council, which included their complaint correspondence.
10. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

11. As I see it, the substantive, unresolved issue at the heart of Mr X’s complaint, is that he believes the Council is liable for the damage the flooding caused to the plants in his garden. He says when the Council initially investigated the issue in late-2023, it agreed that gulley clearing, and maintenance works to a restriction in the drainage system, were needed to address the problem. But after he submitted an insurance claim, Mr X says the Council changed its position, and blamed poor drainage on neighbouring land instead. Mr X says the Council has failed to consider his evidence and conduct a proper investigation into the matter.
12. The Council says that although it carried out street sweeping and gulley emptying/jetting in late-2023 and early-2024, as well as maintenance works to the drainage system in April/May 2024, it believes the root cause of the problem is the run-off/drainage from adjoining third party land.
13. We will normally not investigate complaints about damage to property. This is because such matters are really negligence claims, which the courts are best placed to consider. And only the courts can decide whether the Council is liable for the costs of the damage. We also have no powers to enforce an award of compensation. So, we would usually expect someone in Mr X’s position to seek a remedy in the courts, either directly or through his insurers. I do not consider there is any good reason why he should not be expected to do this, so we will not investigate this part of his complaint.
14. Similarly, where a complainant feels the Council is failing to provide information they have requested, or where they have concerns about data protection, we would normally expect them to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner. I see no good reasons why Mr X should not be expected to use this alternative remedy, so we will not investigate this aspect of the complaint either.
15. And with reference to paragraphs 3 and 7 above, we could not achieve one of the outcomes Mr X is seeking, as we could not get involved in any disciplinary investigations/proceedings which the Council may or may not have taken against the staff involved.
16. Finally, with reference to paragraph 8 above, as we are not pursuing the main issues raised by Mr X (for the reasons explained above), it would not be a good use of our resources to investigate any concerns he has about the Council’s complaint process in isolation.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there are other bodies better placed to consider the main issues being complained about, we cannot become involved in or recommend disciplinary action, and we would not investigate any concerns about the Council’s complaints process in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman