The template in ECHO should be used in all cases. Guidance on each of the headings in the template is set out sections 7.2 to 7.11. Joint working cases follow a slightly different template – a copy of which is available at Appendix Four. Reference is also made at the beginning of each section to the relevant decisions standards, which are set out in full at section 6. Appendix One is a summary of the changes needed between draft decision and final decision. 

You should generally use the past tense throughout the decision statement to describe events, except where that does not aid readability or would be inaccurate. Particularly try to avoid using multiple tenses in the same paragraph.

7.1. The Ombudsman’s draft decision/final decision

This is the heading for the entire document.

7.2. Summary:

This is a headline summary only – it is not the decision itself. It is a summary of the subject of the complaint, our finding (fault/no fault), the claimed injustice and reference to any remedy obtained. 

It should:

• always be written using “We” rather than “I” or “The Ombudsman”. For example “We found the Council failed to properly consider Mr X’s social care needs”. This is because the summary explains our collective responsibility in an authoritative way.  Do not use ‘The Ombudsman finds…’ because it suggests the Ombudsman has personally made the decision, rather than it being made under delegated authority;
• so even though we talk about ‘How I considered the complaint’  and ‘What I found’ in the main text, the summary is always collective, reflecting the Decision Statement signature line ‘Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman’;
• be written in the past tense when referring to the complaint - “Mrs X complained the Council….”, “We found the Council failed to ….” “The Council agreed to change its policy to…”;
• be only one paragraph long, and ideally no more than four sentences; 
• not contain abbreviations unless these are first explained (e.g. Special Educational Needs – SEN); and
• not contain bullet points.

For the complainant and the BinJ it should be a quick answer to the complaint. For other readers, it should give them a quick idea of what the decision says, to help them decide whether to read it – in a similar way to a newspaper headline.

If there are multiple strands to the complaint, the summary does not need to contain the decisions about all of them, but only the main or key points. Similarly, where a remedy is multi-part, you may wish to provide a general description of the remedy, rather than detail each of the specific items.

For Assessment Cases apart from ‘invite to remedy’ cases (and some Investigation cases such as discontinuations) the summary should include –

• The Decision – that we cannot or will not investigate
• The Complaint – a brief description to explain the complaint. This can often most simply be done as part of explaining the decision – for example, “We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the council consulted him on a planning application. This is because…”
• Why – The jurisdictional reason / no evidence of fault / insufficient injustice / authority already remedied

For Investigation cases (and Assessment cases where we have obtained a remedy) the summary should include –

• The complaint – brief description to explain the complaint, but this can often most simply be done as part of explaining the findings. For example: “The Council failed to properly consider Ms X’s homelessness application”.  
• Fault – whether or not we found fault / service failure (if not the summary ends there);
• Injustice – what the resulting injustice was (if any); and
• Remedy (if applicable) – what has been agreed to remedy the injustice (if necessary). This does not normally need include specific financial amounts as this encourages comparison of summaries without considering context. Where a remedy has been agreed the summary should say the BinJ has agreed to this. For ‘invite to remedy’ cases at Assessment, we should normally say something like “We asked the Council to remedy this injustice and it agreed to …”. For part 3A cases decided without agreement we should say something like “We recommend the care provider xxxx”.

For investigation stage, at the draft decision stage the summary should use the phrase “Based on current evidence”. This is already included in the standard investigation DD template. This phrase can then be removed for the final decision as well as making minor amendments to show agreement to any remedy. Examples of summaries, including summaries for draft decisions which must be phrased tentatively, can be found in Appendix Three. More information about wording is set out in section 9 – language and style. 

7.3. The complaint

The relevant decision standard measure is:

• State the complaint succinctly.

Our statement of the allegation(s) made to us initially. This could be the complainant’s wording, but we may need to rephrase it for clarity and/or brevity. It may contain information about matters we cannot or will not investigate. Where appropriate, concisely provide some context so the reader is in no doubt about what the complaint is about. 

Include reference to any injustice claimed.

For example:

• Mr S, complains about the way the Council granted planning permission for a new house next to his property. Mr S is concerned that:
  • the Council gave inappropriate advice to the developer before the planning application was considered
  • the Council did not properly publicise the application 
  • the Planning Officer’s report and comments misled the Committee that granted the planning approval.
    • This meant he has suffered distress and inconvenience.
• Miss P, complains that the Council did not take proper action to deal with antisocial behaviour in the street where she lives. She says her property has been damaged and that she has been fearful for her own safety. She is also unhappy with how the Police dealt with her when she reported children playing football on the street. 
• Mr S, complains that the Council’s decision to refuse his renewal application for a disabled parking badge was unfair and did not properly take into account his medical condition. He says that he has had to pay extra parking fees and ask for extra help from family and friends when he goes out. 
• Mrs G, complains that the Council has not properly assessed her needs for social care support. She says she cannot live independently without this support and is fearful she may have to go into a care home. She is also unhappy that the Council did not give her housing priority when she applied for rehousing five years ago. She says that as a result she’s missed out on support and suffered poor housing.

7.4 The Ombudsman's role and powers

The relevant decision standard measures are:

• Is there an absolute bar to jurisdiction?
• Is there a discretionary bar? Have I exercised discretion, and why?

Always use the relevant standard paragraphs to explain our role and the powers under which we have made this draft decision/final decision. 

So, EITHER

• the powers under which we have decided not to investigate the complaint (on grounds of jurisdiction or ombudsman discretion or both)

OR

• our powers to complete or discontinue the investigation

Where more than one standard paragraph is relevant, it may be necessary to merge them in order to avoid repetition. Where there is a jurisdictional discretion, mention it here.

Where we have completed the investigation we should always use standard paragraph PV23. The draft decision template for investigation automatically includes this paragraph. In the relatively few cases where we discontinue the investigation we need to delete this paragraph and replace it with PV17 (or PV20 with relevant explanation).

An explanation of our reasons for using/not using the jurisdictional discretion may appear here or, if better, under What I found. If you decide not to exercise discretion, there is no need to go into the detail of the substantive matters.

Further information about the law and how it applies can be found in the Guidance on Jurisdiction.

Where relevant the OFSTED/CQC standard paragraphs (about sharing decisions) can be added to this section.

 

7.5. What I have and have not investigated

Delete this section if we have not started an investigation

Delete this section if we have started an investigation into the entire complaint (as there is no need to repeat what is already set out in The Complaint). 

The relevant decision standard measures are:

• State the complaint succinctly
• Explain why other parts of the original complaint were not investigated

You should provide a summary of the allegation(s) we have investigated and, making use of any relevant standard paragraphs, explain the powers under which you have decided not to investigate parts of this complaint (on grounds of either jurisdiction or ombudsman’s discretion or both).

Where you have used discretion not to investigate, mention it and briefly explain your reasons for not using it.

Example:

I have investigated Mrs X’s complaint about the council’s decision making concerning her social care needs since 2020. I have not investigated earlier events as Mrs X could have complained about them earlier. This is a late complaint and there is not enough reason to accept those parts of it for investigation now.

I have investigated that part of Ms Y‘s complaint about how the Council dealt with her complaints of anti-social behaviour in the street where she lives. I cannot investigate her complaints about the actions of the police as they are not an organisation we can investigate.

You should generally use the past tense throughout the decision statement to describe events, except where that does not aid readability or would be inaccurate. Particularly try to avoid using multiple tenses in the same paragraph

7.6. How I considered this complaint

This section is auto-populated on the ECHO templates (Assessment and Investigation) and just needs tailoring to the complaint.

7.7. What I found

The relevant decision standard measures are:

• Identify the points to consider.
• State the decision on each point considered.
• What (if anything) did the BinJ do wrong (and state the test for this).
• Provide the reasoning for the decision.
• What injustice did the fault cause?

If there is a jurisdictional discretion, explain your reasons for either exercising or not exercising discretion. If you decide not to exercise discretion, there is no need to go in to the detail of the substantive matters. Otherwise, cover the following questions although it is up to you how you structure this. Often it may be simpler to combine elements of the following rather than setting each out as a separate section:

a. What should have happened? 

Refer to the BinJ’s procedures, the law, guidance, good practice etc. It is helpful to specifically refer to guidance, where appropriate. For example:

The Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 and the Government’s Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities say bed and breakfast accommodation is not suitable for pregnant women and families with dependent children. 

b. What did happen? 

Only set out events and issues relevant to the complaint. Make your decision statement proportionate to the investigation. Avoid giving a narrative blow-by-blow account of every event. Focus on what is important evidence to explain and justify your findings. The Statement of Reason should focus on objective benchmarks to make a dispassionate assessment of whether there are gaps between what happened and what should have happened. Avoid supposition. Where you are unsure, say what most probably happened (using the standard paragraph about balance of probabilities).

c. Was there fault by the BinJ? 

Consider the reasons for any difference between a) and b). Decide whether the BinJ did anything wrong. If the BinJ has already accepted that it was at fault, you may not need to provide much detail under a) and b) .

Do not introduce new factual information in your analysis. Relevant facts should appear under a) and b) if you are using that structure.

d. Did the fault cause injustice? 

What position would the complainant be in if there had been no fault? Was the complainant disadvantaged?

Sub-headings a) to d) are not mandatory. They are there to encourage you to think about the ‘test’ for fault – comparing what should have happened with what did happen. Different sub-headings, or a different order, are acceptable. And if the complaint is complex, you could take this approach for each allegation in turn. 

Where you need to refer to individual views that have been expressed, you should do so in an evenhanded way, for example when exploring conflicts of evidence. You should also ensure that where something is a supposition, it is accurately expressed as such, rather than as a known fact. For example, if a council says it sent a debt letter on 10 June  but provides no evidence to prove this, you would say:

• The Council says it sent Mrs C a letter on 14 June  explaining the debt.

However, if the Council provided satisfactory evidence to prove it sent the letter, you could say:

• The Council sent Mrs C a letter on 14 June explaining the debt.

You should also say whether you have seen evidence to support the conclusions you make. For example:

• The Council has provided evidence that service users were consulted............
• The Council’s records show....................

It’s important we acknowledge evidence comes in many different forms. Evidence includes people’s recollections as well as written records. Just because a recollection isn’t recorded doesn’t mean it should be discounted. We decide what weight to put on evidence. Avoid statements like ‘Mrs X claims the Council told her not to apply but the Council has no evidence of this’. Instead, you could say something like: “Mrs X claims the Council told her not to apply. The Council’s has no record of this conversation. On balance…”

Remember that the finding should flow naturally from what has gone before. Ideally the narrative will lead the reader to reach the same finding as the Investigator. 

The decision about fault/no fault and injustice is ours to take. Sometimes it may be appropriate to refer to the complainant and / or BinJ’s responses to our draft findings. This may be important to set out how we have had regard to those responses in making our final decision, particularly where we continue to take a different view. To decide whether or not you need to include this content, think about whether such explanation is important to achieve the relevant decision standard measure “Provide the reasoning for the decision”.

7.8. Action

(Note the heading ‘Action’ is acceptable for draft and final decisions)

The relevant decision standard measures are

• Has the injustice been put right? How?
• What remedy should I now recommend, if any?

Describe what the BinJ should do to remedy any injustice. You might also want to use some of the content of this section within your summary.

The decision on what constitutes an acceptable remedy is ours. (see Guidance on Remedies). Having recommended a remedy we should be open to comments from both the PA and the BinJ. If in the light of those comments we change our view on the remedy, we should explain why (if not here, then in the covering letter).  

Example:

• The Council should pay Mr T £500 for the frustration and uncertainty he was caused by its six month delay in assessing his care needs.  
• The Council should apologise for distress caused by its failure to properly consider Mrs T’s needs. 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. [Autotext pv37]

7.9. Decision

The relevant decision standard measures are:

• State the decision on each point identified.
• What remedy should I now recommend, if any?

Be clear about what the decision is, using language which is consistent with:

• what we have written under The Ombudsman’s role and powers; and
• the decision reason we will use in ECHO for this complaint. 

Guidance on decision reasons can be found here. Remember that for draft decisions we must make clear in the summary the decision is based on currently available information and that this will need to be amended for the final decision.

Make sure that your findings are in relation to the complaint as set out under ‘The complaint’ or ‘What I have and have not investigated’. But where there are multiple allegations which have been clearly dealt with under the ‘What I found’ section, it is acceptable to cross refer, for example:

• For the reasons given in paragraphs x, y and z, I have completed my investigation and uphold parts a, b and d of his complaint.

However, if there are a significant number of paragraphs that you would need to refer to, it would be better to quote the sub-heading title instead, for example:

For the reasons explained in the Analysis section, I have completed my investigation and do not uphold Mr B’s complaint.

If you have decided that the complaint should not be investigated, it should confirm why. If you are finding fault causing injustice, you need to refer to both parts.

In some Part 3A decisions, the recommendations for remedy may be part of the final decision.

Examples:

• An outside jurisdiction complaint
  • Mr B has a right of appeal about his parking ticket to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service. It is reasonable for him to use that right and therefore I will not investigate his complaint.
• a part 3A complaint with an SOCR decision-
  • I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr X’s complaint. Mr X has been caused an injustice by the actions of the service provider and I have recommended it take action to remedy that injustice. 
• An Assessment decision of insufficient evidence of fault
  • I am unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council in how it decided the planning application. I will therefore not investigate Mr B’s complaint. 
• a discontinuation with no injustice-
  • I have stopped investigating this complaint. No further action is needed as the injustice caused to Mr X by the alleged fault is not so significant that the Ombudsman would recommend a remedy. 
• a completed fault and inj decision-
  • I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr X’s complaint. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr X. Although Mr X does not agree with my decision, I am satisfied the action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy his injustice. 
• a discontinued outside jurisdiction-
  • I have stopped investigating this complaint. No further action is needed because the issue is not one the Ombudsman can deal with. 
• a completed mal no inj decision-
  • I have completed my investigation and uphold Mr B’s complaint. There was fault by the Council, however it did not cause Mr B an injustice which would need the Council to take any action.

Further examples of how you might word the decision section can be found here

7.10. Signature line

The signature line should say Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman