Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to reject his proposed name changes for his property and how it dealt with his complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making, or significant injustice to Mr X, to warrant investigation. We do not investigate council complaint-handling when not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X has a property with a name as part of its address. He applied to the Council for permission to change its name. Mr X complains the Council:
1. unreasonably rejected his request to change his property’s name;
2. failed to properly respond to his complaint.
2. Mr X says the matter has caused him extreme stress and distress while he has been in a vulnerable state with mental health issues. He also says the matter and the complaint have cost him time and caused him trouble. Mr X wants the Council to apologise and allow him to change his property’s name to the one on his original application.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We consider the processes a council has followed to make its decision. We may only go behind a council’s decision if there has been fault in its decision‑making process which, but for that fault, there would have been a different decision.
7. The Council has a policy which supports its wider duty to prevent confusion between properties by any organisation using addresses to provide a service, including the emergency services, delivery and utility firms. In response to Mr X’s house name change application, the Council did a search for similarly named properties in the local area. Officers found a property nearby with a similar name to the one Mr X proposed. They advised him the requested name was not suitable based on its policy and rejected his application. Mr X suggested a second different name. The Council did a further search on that name and found another property in the area with a similar one. Officers rejected this proposed name.
8. Officers have collected relevant evidence to inform their decision, applied their policy and explained why Mr X cannot use his preferred property names. They also explained some similar property names already exist because they were adopted before previous and current property naming policies, at times when services were more localised and the need for more distinctive and individual addresses was less important. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its decision-making here to warrant investigation. I recognise Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. But it is not fault for a council to properly make a decision with which someone disagrees.
9. The core outcome from the Council’s decision here is that he has not been able to name his house exactly how he would like. I recognise it has been upsetting for Mr X to have his application declined because of his personal investment into his house and his mental health issues. But that is not a sufficient personal injustice to Mr X to warrant us investigating.
10. Mr X says the Council has not properly considered his complaint and his comments on their decision. We do not investigate council complaint-handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault to warrant investigation; and
• there is not a significant personal injustice caused by the Council’s decision which justifies an investigation; and
• we do not investigate council complaint-handling when we are not investigating the core issue giving rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman