Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the consultation carried out by the Council concerning the name and numbering of flats. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says there was a lack of consultation, impartiality, scrutiny and fairness by the Council when it carried out consultation and decided on the name and numbering format for flats, one of which she lives in. She says its decision is contrary to its own policy to number clearly and that she is negatively impacted by the confusion the numbering will cause.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms X and the Council. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

What I found

4. Ms X moved into her flat in 2018. She says in 1973 the Council changed the flat/street naming system for the flats and that this caused confusion as residents then used a mixture of different naming conventions.
5. Due to complaints it had received over a period of time about this matter, the Council decided to consult with all residents and asked them to choose one of three options to determine which naming/numbering system to use.
6. When Ms X returned her reply slip, she did not choose one of the three options presented and instead proposed, as an alternative, the return to the pre-1973 numbering format.
7. The majority of residents chose the third option presented by the Council. It then wrote to all residents to confirm it would implement this outcome.
8. Ms X complained to the Council about this matter, stating that it should have included her alternative of the pre-1973 numbering as a fourth option.
9. The Council responded to Ms X and explained that it had been unable to use her suggested option because it did not comply with the current street naming and numbering policy in which building names are no longer recorded by the Council as an official address. It advised this was in line with national policy and with requests from blue light services.

Assessment

10. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to review the merits of council decisions no matter how strongly a complainant may disagree with them. The Council sought the views of all residents and then acted to implement the view of the majority. That Ms X would have liked a different outcome is not evidence of fault and it has explained to her why her preferred option was not included.
11. Ms X has highlighted the problems she sees will result as a consequence of the Council’s actions and says the landlord and many residents had continued to use her preferred address option up to 2019 and that the Council had been aware of this use. I do not doubt that this option was used. However, to try and resolve the address confusion, the Council consulted on the three options, residents voted for their preferred option and the Council has now implemented the result following the consultation.
12. Ms X also says there are examples of many Council buildings which feature a building name. That this is the case does not change my view of the action the Council took to try and resolve the confusion which existed in this particular case.

Back to top

Final decision

13. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman