Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council changed the name of her street. This is because it is unlikely a further investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a different outcome. The injustice experienced by Mrs X is also not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council changed the name of the road for the new build estate she lives on.
2. Mrs X says she has been required to change her addresses with companies but some companies cannot find the address so cannot update it.
3. Mrs X also complains neighbour’s car insurance premiums have increased because of this address change and is concerned hers will too and that she will incur a cost to replace house and bin signs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered Mrs X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she provided. I have written to Mrs X with my draft decision and given her an opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs X bought a property on a new build development which was attached to an existing road.
7. The developers used the name from the existing road for the new build estate and added to the numbers currently in place.
8. In October 2019, the Council changed the road name for the new build estate to distinguish it from the original road.

Analysis

9. The Council does not have a direct policy for it to follow when changing a road name. The Council has confirmed it is now drafting a policy for such a circumstance in the future.
10. The Council used its policy for developers in naming a road as guidance for its decision to change the name.
11. The Council policy outlines provisions that must be considered from a) through e). Of note for this complaint is section b) which outlines the following:

“b) Any adjacent existing street names should be taken into account to ensure that there is:

i) No duplication of street names that already exist in the town/village/parish. This includes duplication of names with different descriptive elements, eg Mayors Close exists, avoid Mayors Walk, etc.

ii) A continuation of themes for street names, where appropriate.

iii) No confusion with like sounding existing adjacent street names.”

12. The Council took reasonable consideration of the policy to remove duplication of the street name when changing the name. This has removed confusion but also kept a continuation of the theme of street names in the area.
13. This policy also outlines that consultation should take place with the local town or parish council and individual ward members. The Council has confirmed it did not consult before making this change. I would consider there is potential for fault from the Council in its handling of this matter.
14. By changing the street name Mrs X was caused inconvenience in having to update her address details with companies. However, the Council has updated the address with Royal Mail. Issues with companies being unable to update the address are therefore not the fault of the Council.
15. Mrs X has advised that her neighbour’s car insurance has increased on renewal but she has not renewed hers yet. The Ombudsman cannot address an injustice which has not yet occurred.
16. Mrs X advised she incurred a cost of having to replace bin signs and house signs. I would not consider this to be sufficient enough injustice to justify an investigation by the Ombudsman. I would consider the £50 offered by the Council is reasonable to address this inconvenience and cost from the information currently available.

Back to top

Final decision

17. My decision is that the Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council changed the name of her street. This is because it is unlikely a further investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a different outcome. The injustice experienced by Mrs X is also not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman