on the lessons that can be learnt from our complaints about end of life care given in care homes and in the home.
Category : Transport and highways > Street furniture and lighting Decision : Closed after initial enquiries Decision date : 19 Feb 2026
The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to follow the proper process when it renamed a street in its area because Mr X was not caused a significant personal injustice. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his Freedom of Information request because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better suited. We will not investigate the Council’s complaints handling because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council: changed a street name in his area without following proper procedure; failed to provide him with all the information he requested via a Freedom of Information (FOI) request; and failed to respond to his complaint.
Mr X said the matter caused him frustration and distress.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Changed a street name in his area We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide the impact of the fault a person complains about is not so significant that we should investigate.
We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant is using their enquiry as a way of raising a wider community campaign about something of general concern, but where they have not suffered injustice.
Mr X does not live on the street that was re-named. Mr X has not been caused a significant personal injustice. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.
Poor response to his FOI request We will not investigate this complaint. It is open to Mr X to take the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office if he believes the Council failed to respond to his FOI request appropriately.
Parliament created the ICO to consider such matters. I have seen no reason the Ombudsman should consider the matter in lieu of the ICO, and therefore we will not investigate this complaint.
Poor complaints handling It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. Consequently, we will not investigate the Council’s complaint handling.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the tests in our Assessment Code are not met.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman