Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly allocate address numbering to a development and about how it dealt with his complaint. We have found delay and poor complaint handling causing Mr X frustration and uncertainty. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr X and take action to resolve the issue and avoid a recurrence.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly allocate address numbering to a development as it allowed duplicated individual flat numbers. Mr X says this causes problems with deliveries and potential medical help. Mr X also complains about the Council’s handling of his complaint and failure to make timely reasonable adjustments or provide him with a copy of his complaint which the Council took by video call. Mr X also says the Council’s proposal to renumber all the affected flats will cause him inconvenience.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr X contacted the Council during June 2024 about the addressing issue at his development. The Council has not provided details of Mr X’s initial contact. Mr X has provided evidence of his initial report about this issue via an email dated 23 June from his carer. This email provided an outline of Mr X’s concerns about addressing and that he wished to make a Stage 1 complaint and was seeking reasonable adjustments to do so. Mr X has also provided evidence of his telephone chasers in July.
8. I have viewed a video call between Mr X and the Council held towards the end of July about a different matter in which Mr X chased up a response about the above report. Mr X explained he wanted one of the two buildings renamed. It was agreed the matter would be treated urgently.
9. Mr X’s advocate sent a follow up email to the Council in August.
10. The Council acknowledged internally in August that the numbering at Mr X’s development was not an ideal situation and did not represent a safe set of addressing for blue light services and may cause confusion for Royal Mail. The Council proposed renumbering the flats consecutively throughout the buildings.
11. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in August.
12. The Council responded to Mr X at Stage 1 of its complaint procedure towards the end of October 2024. This correspondence accepted Mr X’s concerns and confirmed a meeting was to be held with relevant officers to discuss the renumbering of the flats and a notification letter was to be sent to all residents. The Council provided details of the next stage of its complaint procedure if Mr X remained unhappy and confirmed a MS Teams video call could be arranged.
13. The Council did not progress the renumbering proposal as Mr X raised concerns about the inconvenience this would cause him and other disabled residents in his building.
14. Mr X asked for the matter to be escalated to Stage 2 of the Council’s complaint procedure during a video call with the Council in mid-December 2024. Mr X reiterated his preference was for one of the two buildings to be renamed rather than any renumbering. Mr X was unhappy the Council had not contacted the developer and wanted to know how the duplicated numbering had been allowed.
15. We advised both Mr X and the Council in January 2025 that we would investigate the matter.
16. The Council’s website sets out its procedure for street naming and numbering and provides the relevant application forms and guidance notes. The Council has also provided a copy of the best practice guidance it follows when naming and numbering new developments. The Council has also provided an extract from the application it received for the new development involved in this complaint and the naming and numbering schedule provided to the developer.
17. The Council has confirmed there are two principial entrance points to the development on the same street but the addresses of each building are not accessed via the same entrance points. The Council says that although the two buildings are conjoined, the development has been designed in a way that proposed these as two buildings. 
18. The Council has confirmed it is satisfied the developer has complied with the schedule provided within the Street Naming and Numbering Order it issued. The Council does not accept there has been any duplication in numbering at the development. The Council further says it has not received any other reports or complaints relating to the numbering at this development.
19. Although the Council has acknowledged the addressing is not ideal and may cause confusion for Blue Light Services it has confirmed it was carried out in accordance with best practice guidance and in consultation with Royal Mail and the London Fire Brigade.  There were no objections raised by either organisation to the proposed addressing and they have not reported any issues since the addressing has been in place. The Council has explained that on creating the addresses, Royal Mail issue the post codes to the Local Authority and this also provides a final opportunity to raise an objection if it was considered a specific set of addressing may lead to confusion but no such objections were raised.
20. Mr X has explained his building has a significant number of disabled occupants who would be adversely affected by a change in numbering now and has suggested his preferred solution would be for the Council to facilitate with the developer to change the name of the other building leaving the numbering intact for both parts of the development.
21. In responding to the Ombudsman, the Council has proposed a consultation with all residents of both buildings to establish a general consensus on the matter. The Council says this could be completed via a written consultation process or through a discussion at the Town Hall with residents. The Council would then consider what if any action was needed.
22. Mr X also complained about how the Council dealt with his complaint. There was a delay between Mr X raising the issue in June 2024 and receiving a response at the end of October 2024. The Council did not provide a reason for the delay. I consider this delay to be fault. The Council was also unable to provide the Ombudsman with details of Mr X’s initial contact about this matter. This failure in record keeping is fault.
23. Mr X also says the Council failed to make timely reasonable adjustments as it did not make arrangements for him to make his complaint via a video call. The email dated 23 June 2024 sent by Mr X’s carer on his behalf clearly sought reasonable adjustments for Mr X to make a stage 1 complaint. The Council failed to respond to this request.
24. I am satisfied the above delay in complaint handling, poor record keeping and failure to respond to Mr X’s request for a reasonable adjustment to make his complaint will have caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty.
25. I note the Council’s Stage 1 complaint response provided details of the next stage of the Council’s complaint procedure if Mr X remained unhappy and confirmed a MS Teams video call could be arranged. This is in accordance with the reasonable adjustments agreed with Mr X. I see no fault here.
26. I do not find the Council at fault for not progressing the matter to Stage 2 of its complaint procedure as requested by Mr X in mid-December 2024. Mr X had already complained to the Ombudsman at this point and we advised both Mr X and the Council in January 2025 that we would now investigate the matter.
27. I am concerned that the Council had accepted as early as August 2024 that the address numbering at this development was not an ideal situation and did not represent a safe set of addressing for blue light services and may cause confusion for Royal Mail. Although the Council has confirmed the addressing has followed the relevant best practice guidance it is clear it accepted the situation was unsatisfactory and potentially dangerous on the ground. I would have expected this to have prompted a review of the relevant application and associated process to identify what changes were needed to prevent a similar situation in the future.
28. The Council should also have made arrangements to raise the issue with all residents sometime during the period August to October 2024 and make an assessment of what, if any, action it should take. Although Mr X had raised the issue and provided his preference about what action should be taken, it was for the Council to decide what was the best way forward given the interests of all affected residents. Although the Council has now proposed such action, which the Ombudsman would welcome, it is likely to be more difficult to achieve a consensus on the way forward given the passage of time.
29. The Council has confirmed it does not currently have a published Street Naming and Numbering Policy but is actively working on developing one which will be published once it has been approved.
30. The Council has also confirmed that since Mr X’s complaint it is to introduce a new Corporate Complaints Procedure which will highlight reasonable adjustments and provide further information about how such requests will be dealt with in a Reasonable Adjustments Policy.

Back to top

Action

31. To provide a suitable remedy to Mr X the Council should take the following action within six weeks of my final decision:
1. write to Mr X to apologise for the delay in dealing with his original report about the addressing at his property and not responding to his request for a reasonable adjustment to make his complaint via a video call;
2. make a symbolic payment to Mr X of £200 for his avoidable inconvenience and frustration;
3. review the relevant application and associated process to identify what changes are needed to avoid a repetition of the accepted issue on the ground at other new developments;
4. consult with the residents of both buildings about the options for the naming and/or numbering of the development (the consultation should follow the relevant best practice guidance and ensure all affected residents including those with disabilities are able to fully engage in the process);
5. reach a decision about what, if any, action the Council proposes to take within one month of the outcome of the above consultation process and advise residents accordingly; and
6. complete any changes within a reasonable time period.
32. The Council should also provide the Ombudsman with a copy of its Street Naming and Numbering Policy, its new Corporate Complaints Procedure and Reasonable Adjustment Policy once these policies have been approved and no later than six months from the date of my final decision.

33. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

35. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman