Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of matters related to a change of postcode for Ms X’s property. We will not investigate the complaint because it is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, says the Council altered her postcode without consultation or informing her. As a result, Ms X says she missed out on claiming a replacement boiler and her credit score has been badly affected. She wants the Council to pay for a new boiler.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Ms X, including the Council’s response to her complaint. I gave Ms X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what she said.

Back to top

What I found

6. In 2002 Ms X moved into her property. In 2009 the postcode for the property was removed by the Royal Mail’s delivery office and a different postcode began to be used. The Council says Royal Mail told it the postcode had been noted as “does not exist” but that Royal Mail has no other history of why this happened. The Council says there is no record that it asked or instructed Royal Mail to change the records.
7. Over the years Ms X has experienced problems with the postcode change and sometimes she and her family had to use the original and the altered postcode. She says in 2016/17 she received information about obtaining a grant to replace her boiler at no cost to her. She says each time she tried to claim the grant, the company dealing with it ran a check on her property and, due to the postcode mix up, her property came back as “no match”.
8. In October 2019, when applying for a disabled bus pass for a family member at the Council, Ms X found her property had an incomplete postcode recorded.
9. In 2020 Ms X complained to the Council about the problems she had experienced. It responded to set out its understanding of what had occurred and to confirm the official address postcode it had recorded against her property. It told her that having discussed matters with Royal Mail, it appeared the only solution would be to just use the one postcode as per the official address, though it noted this would unfortunately mean she would have to amend all records holding the alternative postcode.
10. With regard to her request for a new boiler, it gave her details of its Energy and Home Support Advisor to see if she met the relevant criteria for assistance.
11. Ms X told the Council she had already been advised she did not meet the criteria but that she would have qualified for a free boiler in previous years but for the postcode mix up. The Council responded by confirming it had spoken to Royal Mail again and advised her of the action she could take to try and resolve the postcode issue. However, it told Ms X it was unable to assist with buying her a new boiler.
12. Dissatisfied with the Council’s response, Ms X complained to us.

Assessment

13. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to Ms X’s complaint. She knew of the postcode problem, and her unsuccessful attempts to claim a grant for a new boiler a number of years ago, and it is too late for us to investigate these matters now.
14. I see no grounds which warrant exercising discretion as an investigation would be unlikely to add to that already undertaken by the Council or lead to a different outcome.
15. In responding to my draft decision Ms X says the Council did not tell her about her right to take her complaint to us until 2020 and that she did not know of our service earlier. The Council’s online complaint information refers to our service and we have been in existence for more than 40 years.
16. Ms X says we should exercise discretion to investigate her complaint. She points to parish council records from 2009 to support her claim that the Council was responsible for the change and not Royal Mail and says the Council has not denied that the change to the postcode would have caused a problem. However, it is the case that the further away in time an investigation takes place from the events to be investigated, the more difficult it may be to establish the material facts with reasonable confidence. The Council liaised with Royal Mail and took the information it received into account when responding to Ms X’s complaint. Ms X is sure she would have received a free boiler had the “no match” postcode issue not stopped her applications at the first hurdle. However, she knew of this in 2016/17, and her complaint to the Council in 2020 refers to an issue with her electricity supply and her contact with the Council about her postcode back in 2013 when it told her it was an issue for Royal Mail.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is a late complaint and so falls outside our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman