The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr D complained about the way the Council handled his complaints about flooding at his property since early 2022. Investigations took place from November 2023, and it became evident the Council is not responsible for the issue. We found fault in the time taken for the Council to confirm this and recommended a financial remedy.
The complaint
Mr D complains about the way the Council has dealt with his complaints about flooding at his property since late 2022. Investigations took place in February 2024, which confirm it is not the Council’s responsibility, however, Mr D has been contacting the Council for almost two years before this was concluded. Mr D is seeking recognition of the avoidable time and trouble caused by the Council.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I have considered the information provided by Mr D and the Council, and our guidance notes “Principles of Good Administrative Practice” .
Mr D and the Council now have the opportunity to comment on this draft decision before a final decision is made.
What I found
What happened Mr D says the issue began in 2022 when his property began to flood each time it rained. He says he reported the issue in 2022, but the Council failed to address the problem until February 2024. He says in that time he has been contacting the Council each time it has rained.
A gas company contacted the Council on behalf of Mr D in December 2022, and reported there was damage to the drain system. The gas company emailed the Council in January 2023 and asked whether the Council would meet with them and Mr D to try to resolve the flooding, which was causing damage to his drive.
The gas company chased the Council again later in January 2023. The Council said it was Mr D’s responsibility. The gas company explained why it believed it was an issue for the Council.
The gas company chased the Council again regarding a site visit and said Mr D had been chasing him for an update.
In internal emails at the Council, it accepted it owed a duty of care to the resident/s affected in February 2023.
The Council received several complaints from others regarding the flooding and requested utility plans for the location in November 2023. In December 2023, the Council confirmed to Mr D that the utility plans belonged to a water company.
In April 2023, the Council confirmed to Mr D it was arranging a site visit.
The Council wrote to Mr D in August 2023 confirming the matter was closed. The Council says this was on the basis it was for the gas company to carry out a repair. I cannot see that the reason was explained to Mr D.
Following Mr D’s complaint to this office, in November 2023, the Council arranged a site visit which took place in February 2024. The Council confirmed it is not responsible for the damage or repair.
Findings and Analysis It is evident the Council were aware there was an issue which was impacting Mr D since December 2022.
The Council did not take proactive action until November 2023, and did not carry out a site visit until February 2024, more than two years after it became aware of the issue and acknowledged it owed a duty of care to Mr D.
In our guidance notes “Principles of Good Administrative Practice” we explain how councils should deliver their services to the public. They should take reasonable, timely decisions based on all relevant considerations. They should explain and respond to delays proactively and state the criteria used to make decisions.
Although the Council were taking the stance that it was not responsible, it is not reasonable for it to have delayed an inspection of the site for this length of time.
The Council has left Mr D unsure of how to rectify the matter or of who would carry out a repair for two years, knowing his property was being damaged in the meantime. This is fault.
If the Council had arranged a site visit sooner, Mr D could have turned his attention to the water supplier two years sooner than he did, and the issue may have been resolved much sooner.
He would also have been saved the time and trouble taken contacting the Council repeatedly, and to no avail.
Agreed action
Within one month of the Final Decision, the Council will apologise to Mr D and make a payment of £250 to him in recognition of the avoidable distress caused by the Council’s fault.
The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation on the basis the basis the Council is at fault.
Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman