My garage and yard flooded last night ad a result of water running off the highway. This is the 4th time in 3 years. Council highways have been informed everytime and i have requested that they look into the problem. They have done nothing. Not even a site visit.

Apart from a great deal of mud, an inch of water, i have in my garage a eooden chassis car and a vintage motorbike. Goodness knows howi,’m going to dry them. Also looks like the washing machine is nailed.

Are the council liable and if so how do i claim?

They are only liable if you can show they are negligent.

Are there not steps you could have taken to prevent this such as diverting the water flow? Is there a blocked drain?

It could also be a back flow issue which is down to the water company.

TJ you are sure there’s no statutory duty on the Council in this regard?

The law is otherwise reluctant to impose duties on Councils as a matter pof policy, although as TJ says they are liable under general negligence.

Is the issue that there is insufficient or no draining?

Is the road adopted?

The council have a DUTY OF CARE, to ensure the drains arent blocked, and that they are maintained.

Write a freedom of information request asking who owns the drain , when it was last inspected and for a copy of the inspection report, as well as all reports of previous flooding, and the outcome.

Wooden framed car, should nt you mean a boat.

from memory and google the answer is possibly

“”From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Rylands v Fletcher

Court House of Lords
Full case name John Rylands and Jehu Horrocks v Thomas Fletcher
Date decided 17 July 1868
Citation(s) [1868] UKHL 1, (1868) LR 3 HL 330
Transcript(s) Full text of House of Lords decision
Judge(s) sitting Cairns LC
Lord Cranworth
Case history
Prior action(s) Court of Liverpool Assizes
Exchequer of Pleas
Court of Exchequer Chamber ([1866] LR 1 Ex 265)
Case opinions
Cairns LC
Lord Cranworth
Keywords
Strict liability, nuisance
Rylands v Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1 was a decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. Rylands employed contractors to build a reservoir, playing no active role in its construction. When the contractors discovered a series of old coal shafts improperly filled with debris, they chose to continue work rather than properly blocking them up. The result was that on 11 December 1860, shortly after being filled for the first time, Rylands’s reservoir burst and flooded a neighbouring mine, run by Fletcher, causing £937 worth of damage. Fletcher brought a claim under nuisance, through which the case eventually went to the Exchequer of Pleas; while ruling in favour of Rylands, Bramwell B, dissenting, argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that as a result the defendant was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance. Bramwell’s argument was affirmed, both by the Court of Exchequer Chamber and the House of Lords, leading to the development of the “Rule in Rylands v Fletcher; that “the person who for his own purpose brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief, if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape”.[1]

This doctrine was further developed by English courts, and made an immediate impact on the law. Prior to Rylands, English courts had not based their decisions in similar cases on strict liability, and had focused on the intention behind the actions rather than the nature of the actions themselves. In contrast, Rylands imposed strict liability on those found detrimental in such a fashion without having to prove a duty of care or negligence, which brought the law into line with that relating to public reservoirs and marked a significant doctrinal shift. Academics have criticised it, however, both for the economic damage such a doctrine could cause and for its limited applicability.

The tort of Rylands v Fletcher has been disclaimed in various jurisdictions, including Scotland, where it was described as “a heresy that ought to be extirpated”,[2] and Australia, where the High Court chose to destroy the doctrine in Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd. Within England and Wales, however, Rylands remains valid law, although the decisions in Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc and Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council make it clear that it is no longer an independent tort, but instead a sub-tort of nuisance.””

The argument is that by managing the rainfall into drains they are taking control of the water and it’s movement they there for owe a duty to take reasonable care to prevent damage to those they could reasonably forsee would be effected by it’s escape or owerflow . Given that you have complained in the past and they have not acted i suspect you would have a strong argument.

Plus, IIRC:

Bybrook Barn Garden Centre v Kent County Council 2001

Wow, it’s why I love Single Track forum, you guys give such great advice.
I hope it works for you.

Can’t you just claim from your house insurance and let them try to get the money from the council?

If you are insured it would be wise to take the route suggested by McHamish, because otherwise you may well breach the contract between you and your insurer. If you are not sure why, its on the basis that you mustn’t admit liability after an accident even if its obivous that you were at fault. That is becuase you have basically broken your agreement to give all of your rights to the insurer so they can negotiate a settlement without impairment. So in this instance, claim from your insurer, its then down to them whether they want to take it up with your local authority.

Wow, it’s why I love Single Track forum, you guys give such great advice.

me too!

thanks for all the replies, much appreciated.

have calmed down somewhat since this morning… and then our central heating boiler packed up! : (

the council guy with responsibility for the area came out to see me. the water flows off the fields above the road, rattles down a private track and onto the road. the problem is that the floodwater brings with it a great deal of soil and gravel which almost immediately blocks the road drains (i often go out and clear the drains myself in the autumn when leaves are a problem). as soon as the two drains fail we cop it.

so effectively water coursing down a public highway runs into a drainage system owned and maintained by the council and this drainage system is known by the council to be prone to blockage.

fortunately nothing has been damaged, well maybe the boiler but won’t know that until tomorrow and if that is a result of flooding then yes insurer, i’m just so cross with having to clear mud and water out of the garage and back yard. i also know cornwall county council well, they will get away with as much as they can!

Surely the liability is with whoever owns the fields and the private track?

project – Member
…Wooden framed car, should nt you mean a boat.

Old Marcos?

morgan 4/4 4-seater.

The garage has already flooded 3 times in the last 3 years.

The council has neglected to resolve the problem.

And you chose to store wooden car bits in it?

Time for a surveyors report.