The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s management of his street naming application. We find the Council at fault which caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty, distress, and frustration. The Council has agreed to urgently provide an application decision, apologise for the delay, and make a symbolic payment to Mr X for injustice caused. This is an appropriate remedy.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the Council’s management of his street naming application. He says the Council did not follow the correct legal process, delayed its decision, and acted outside its powers in the way it processed his application.
Mr X says the road remains unnamed and he has been unable to complete a development and install utility services which caused him avoidable uncertainty, distress and financial loss.
Mr X wants the Council to accept his proposed name without further delays.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) 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)
How I considered this complaint
During my investigation I spoke to Mr X to discuss his complaint and considered information he provided. I also made enquiries of the Council and considered its response.
Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Law and guidance The available street naming powers are the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907 and the Public Health Act 1925. An authority may adopt one or the other, but not both.
Section 17 of The Public Health Act 1925 says: Before any street is given a name, notice of the proposed name shall be sent to the urban authority by the person proposing to name the street.
The urban authority, within one month after the receipt of such notice, may, by notice in writing object to the proposed name to the applicant.
It shall not be lawful to set up in any street sign of the name: (a) until the expiration of one month after notice of the proposed name has been sent to the urban authority; and (b) where the urban authority has objected to the proposed name, unless and until such objection has been withdrawn by the urban authority or overruled on appeal; (c) where the urban authority serves a notice of objection under this section, the person proposing to name the street may, within twenty-one days after the service of the notice, appeal against the objection to court.
The Council’s Street Naming policy The Council’s policy says: It has adopted the provisions of Sections 17 of the Public Health Act 1925 relating to street naming.
It strives to name new roads with local geographical, historical, or cultural relevance and in accordance with its Street Naming and Numbering policy.
Suggestions for new street names will be considered in line with the above criteria before being submitted for consultation with either the Parish Council or Councillor’s dependant on whether the development site is rural or urban.
The Council allows a two-week consultation period, and the new street name will also have to be approved by the emergency services and the Royal Mail.
The LGSCO’s Principles of Good Administrative Practice says we expect councils to be open and accountable. This includes: Making timely decisions and providing suitable updates where there is delay.
Clearly explaining the rationale for decisions and recording them accurately.
What happened Mr X said he was developing a property and therefore created a new access road. He explained he could not install utilities on the new development without a registered address.
In early February 2023, Mr X made an application to name the access road (Name A).
The records say: The Council acknowledged Mr X’s application and then referred it to the local Parish Council for consultation.
However, the Parish Council suggested an alternative name to the Council (Name Z). Mr X then told the Council he wanted to proceed with Name A.
The Council therefore referred the matter back to the Parish Council who advised Name A was overused, and Name Z was more suitable.
At the end of March, the Council told Mr X that Name A was not approved.
The available records do not show the Council’s next steps. However, Mr X said, in late June the Council suggested he propose alternative names. Mr X said he wanted to avoid delay and therefore suggested Names B and C.
The Council has confirmed Mr X’s alternative names were suitable and therefore it referred to the Parish Council again for consultation. Mr X said the consultation deadline was in mid-August 2023.
Mr X said he waited until mid-September without an update from the Council. He said he later discovered the Parish Council had included Name Z in its consultation when it should have limited it to Names B and C. The records say the consultation outcome was in favour of Name Z.
Mr X’s complaint In mid-September, Mr X complained to the Council. He said the Council had: Failed to issue an objection within one month of his initial application and he was therefore allowed to use Name A.
Acted outside its powers in trying to impose Name Z and the Parish Council consultation incorrectly included this name.
Had delayed its decision by almost seven months and he would consider legal action unless it now approved Name A.
The Council’s complaint responses In its early October, stage one response, the Council said: It had adhered to the street naming statutory timescales and stayed in communication with Mr X.
It rejected Name A to avoid confusion and engaged with the Parish Council to find an alternative (Name Z) which was more suitable.
It should go ahead with Name Z to avoid further delay.
In its mid-November stage two response the Council said: It could not always meet its published two-week consultation deadline because multiple parties had to be consulted who had their own response times.
Mr X’s application was delayed due to officer leave and consultations with the Parish Council, emergency services and Royal Mail. However, it sympathised with the financial impact of the delay on his development.
It appreciated Mr X did not want name Z and he could therefore suggest alterative names for further consideration.
In reply, Mr X explained he had already suggested alternative names which the Council had deemed suitable. However, it failed to ensure the Parish Council’s consultation was limited to these which had caused the delay.
In its final response the Council said it could not go against the wishes of the Parish Council. However, it was willing to organise a meeting with all parties, including Mr X to agree a suitable name.
Unhappy with the Council’s continued lack of progress with his application, Mr X approached the Ombudsman in late November.
The Council’s response to our enquiries In response to our enquiries, the Council said it: Accepted it had not followed due process in the way it processed Mr X’s street naming application and had referred the matter to its legal team.
Did not issue Mr X with a formal objection notice but had maintained communication with him.
Had not provided Mr X with written confirmation of its decisions during the consultations to ensure he could exercise his appeal rights.
Accepted it was at fault and wanted to urgently remedy the situation. It would therefore: Immediately consult the emergency services and Royal Mail on all three of Mr X’s proposed street names. Unless a significant concern was raised it would accept Name A. If there were concerns, it would use either Names B or C.
Once the street name is confirmed it will write to apologise to Mr X and confirm the decision. It aims to complete the process by the end of May 2024 at the latest.
Was there fault and did it cause injustice?
The available evidence shows the Council processed Mr X’s street naming application in February 2023 and referred Name A to the Parish Council for consultation. The Council has explained it could not provide its decision within one month due to officer leave and reliance on third-party responses which were out its hands. At the end of March, it informed Mr X his application was not approved. However, the Council should have issued Mr X with a notice of objection. The Council has confirmed it failed to do so, which was inconsistent with the law as set out at paragraph 9 (above). This is fault which meant Mr X experienced continued delay in exercising his right to appeal the Council’s decision at the Magistrates Court. This is injustice.
The Council’s records also do not clearly set out how it reached its decision to initially reject Name A. The evidence indicates the Council decided Name A had met its policy criteria because it proceeded with consultation. Mr X believes the Council was dissuaded by its subsequent discussions with the Parish Council. In its stage one response, the Council explained it ultimately decided Name A would cause misidentification. However, it has not provided evidence to show its consideration of this issue or its further enquiries with the emergency services and Royal Mail to establish this position. The records show it instead repeatedly liaised with the Parish Council about Name Z being more suitable before rejecting Mr X’s application. The Council’s failure to properly address and record these steps was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Administrative Practice (Paragraph 11) and its street naming policy (Paragraph 10) and is fault. This meant Mr X experienced avoidable uncertainty and distress about whether it had properly reached its decision to reject his application. This is injustice.
The records indicate the Council later engaged Mr X to provide alternative names to resolve his application. In late June, Mr X proposed Names B and C. The Council has confirmed these met its policy criteria and it therefore referred them to the Parish Council again. However, the records show the Parish Council’s subsequent consultation also included Name Z. In its stage one response the Council also told Mr X it should proceed with Name Z, which was more suitable. The Council’s decision making was inconsistent with its street naming policy which does not mention additional or alternative names forming part of its consultation process. From June 2023, Mr X believed the Council was consulting exclusively on his alternative names until he came to know about the consultation. He then experienced avoidable distress and frustration on finding out found out Name Z had been included without his knowledge. This is injustice.
I have already addressed the issue of the Council’s initial delay with Mr X’s application at paragraph 25 (above). From late June 2023, the Council re-engaged with Mr X with alternative street names and waited for the consultation outcome. However, Mr X explained the deadline passed in mid-August without any update from the Council. Mr X remained patient until mid-September and then decided to complain. In its November stage two response (Paragraph 20) the Council accepted it still had not completed the process. This was approximately five months after Mr X provided Names B and C for the Council’s consideration. It also acknowledged the financial impact of the delay on Mr X’s development. In my view, the period of five months without progress amounts to excessive delay and is inconsistent with the Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Administrative Practice (Paragraph 11). This requires Councils to make timely decisions and provide updates when this is not possible. The Council also accepts it failed to issue Mr X with written confirmation at each stage of its decision making in respect of the consultation. The Council’s failure to do so is poor communication which caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty and frustration. This is injustice.
The Council’s subsequent handling of Mr X’s complaint also caused confusion. In its stage two response the Council said Mr X should provide alternative names, but he had already taken that course in June 2023. The Council’s response did not address this issue correctly, explain why it had rejected Names B and C or why Name Z had been permitted in the Parish Council’s consultation. The complaint records indicate the Council was itself unclear about the correct chronology of events. Its complaint communications with Mr X therefore caused him avoidable frustration. Mr X therefore lost confidence in the Council and felt the need to complain to the Ombudsman. This is injustice.
Agreed action
The Council has accepted it was at fault and offered to take urgent action as set out at paragraph 24 (above) to remedy the situation. It has confirmed that it has already made a payment to Mr X of £250 for his avoidable uncertainty, distress, and frustration. This is welcomed by the Ombudsman but is a partial remedy. I will make further recommendations to address the full extent of the injustice to Mr X.
Within one month of my final decision, the Council should: Complete its proposed remedial actions to include the process of consulting the emergency services and Royal Mail on all three of Mr X’s proposed street names (Names A, B and C) and provide Mr X with a decision.
Write to Mr X and apologise for: i) Failing to issue him with a notice of objection and any delay to his right to exercise his appeal rights.
ii) Failing to provide Mr X with a clear explanation of the reasons for the rejection of Name A and any avoidable uncertainty and frustration caused to him.
iii) Failing to ensure the street naming consultation was consistent with its policy and any avoidable distress and frustration caused to him.
iv) The Council’s delay in deciding his street naming application and failure to provide him with suitable updates during its consultations and any avoidable uncertainty, distress and frustration caused to him.
v) Failing to properly address Mr X’s concerns in its stage two complaint response and any avoidable frustration caused to him.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
I find the Council at fault which caused injustice to Mr X. I have made recommendations to address the injustice caused which the Council has agreed.
I have completed my investigation.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman