The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to remove silt from a riverbed under a highway bridge which Mr X says is responsible for flooding of his home in the past. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. If Mr X says his home has been damage due to negligence it would be reasonable for him to seek a remedy through the Council’s insurers and the courts.
The complaint
Mr X says his home was damaged by flooding in 2012 which he believes was due to silt forming under a bridge which the Council maintains. The Council removed silt in 2013 but has not done so since. Mr X says the Council should remove the silt annually to prevent further flooding under its duties as lead flood authority and highway authority.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) The law 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council’s responses.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X lives near a bridge which he says suffers from a build up of silt on the riverbed. His home was flooded in 2012 and the Council carried out work to remove the silt in 2013. It has not done this since that time and in 2023 the river flooded again. He wants the Council to draw up a regular maintenance programme to remove the silt and decrease the flooding risk.
The Council told Mr X some years ago that removing the silt was not a solution to the problem because the next flooding of the river would simply replace it. Land management work by the riparian owners upstream (of which Mr X is one) would be the means of reducing silt but this is not the Council’s responsibility. As highway authority the Council is only responsible for the bridge itself and the carriageway, not the riverbed.
Mr X told the Council that if his property is flooded again due to its failure to undertake the works he will make a claim against it through his insurers. This would be a civil matter and claims against the Council would be handled by its insurers and if no liability is accepted it would be a matter for the courts to determine.
The Ombudsman will not normally investigate complaints about damage to property or injury to people arising from claims of negligence. Negligence claims and interpreting the law around legal torts are generally best decided by a court where no insurance liability is accepted.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to remove silt from a riverbed under a highway bridge which Mr X says is responsible for flooding of his home in the past. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation. If Mr X says his home has been damage due to negligence it would be reasonable for him to seek a remedy through the Council’s insurers and the courts.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman