Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council will not agree to add his preferred name to his property. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault and the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council will not agree to add his preferred name to his property. He says the Council’s explanation that other properties in the area share this name is not correct, as no other property in his village uses the name.

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’. 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 it is unlikely we would find fault or the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information provided by Mr X in his complaint.
5. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr X, who had an opportunity to comment on it.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Mr X applied to the Council to add a house name to his property.
7. The Council refused the application because there are other properties in the postcode area which use the same name. Mr X disagrees with this reason because the proposed name is not used by other properties in his village.
8. The Council’s policy says that when applications are made for house names, it will check that the proposed name is not already used in the same postcode area. It explains the policy is important for several reasons, including allowing emergency services to find a property quickly and mail to be delivered efficiently.

Analysis

9. The Council considered Mr X’s application against its policy and rejected the request because other properties in the postcode area already use the proposed name.
10. The Council’s decision is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. I appreciate Mr X may disagree with the policy. However, the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body and we cannot intervene simply because the Council makes a decision, or has a policy, that someone disagrees with.
11. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. Not being able to use his preferred house name does not represent enough of an injustice to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault and the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman