The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to install a drainage gully. That is because there is not enough evidence Mr X has been caused a significant injustice and there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
The complaint
Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to install a drainage gully near where he lives. He said the gully will increase the chances of his property flooding because of its location. Mr X wants the Council to remove the gully.
Mr X said the Council Officer who responded to his complaint, also dealt with his initial concerns about the gully, Therefore, he feels the complaint response is not independent and is biased.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X has previously contacted the Council about steps to reduce the likelihood of flooding to his property caused by heavy rainfall and surface water run-off from a near-by road. He has installed flood defences to reduce the likelihood of flooding to his property.
The Council installed a drainage gully in November 2021 to redirect surface water into a carrier pipe. Following that, Mr X contacted the Council as he was concerned the gully would lead to further flooding of his property. He asked for the Council to remove it.
In the Council’s correspondence with Mr X, it confirmed that if he could provide evidence the gully caused more water to run onto his property, it would remove it. It asked Mr X to film it if possible. It also confirmed that if heavy rainfall occurred during the day, it might be possible for a Council Officer to complete a site visit. It gave Mr X the contact details of the Officers to contact.
Although Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s response, we will not investigate this complaint further. Although Mr X believes the installation of the gully will increase water flow to his property, there is nothing to indicate that has occurred. At this point, his concerns are speculative, therefore there is not enough evidence he has been caused an injustice to justify our involvement.
In any event, we would not be critical of the Council requiring evidence that the gully had an adverse effect of Mr X’s property before removing it. Therefore, there is also not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify investigating.
Mr X has also complained about how the Council responded to his complaint. It is not good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council’s actions have not cause him a significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman