Our main purpose is to remedy injustice if there has been fault

We make fair decisions on individual complaints through robust, proportionate investigations. Everything else we do is drawn from this core work. We do not investigate all cases that come to us. We have clear criteria setting out what we will investigate so we are consistent and to focus our limited resources on  where we can be most effective and help the most people. T

We act independently and impartially, in the public interest

We do not do deals, negotiate or compromise to close a case. We must be clear about what has gone wrong, so the same problem can be avoided in future and the organisation responsible can be held to account.

We deal with complaints about the real experience of individuals

We deal with everyday injustice and the lived experience of people. The complaint decisions we make are defined by what users of local services say they are concerned about. 

Understanding individual injustice enables us to fix problems for many others.

We use our investigations to recommend action to help improve services. We can follow up serious concerns we come across during investigations to address wider problems. 

We recommend remedies for injustice, not compensation, punishment or fines

When someone has suffered because of fault, we try to put them back in the position they would have been if that error had not happened. We focus on restoring services that have been denied and recommending practical steps to put things right. When that is not possible, we recommend remedies that acknowledge the impact of fault. When these are payments, they are often a modest, symbolic amount. We do not assess economic losses or award compensation like the courts can. We do not punish people or organisations. 

We are the “end-of-the-line”

Ideally no complaints would have to come to the Ombudsman for independent investigation. It is always better for the public if their concerns can be resolved swiftly and fully when they are first made to the organisation they are dealing with. We offer a free, accessible and reasonably quick route to justice when local complaint systems have not worked. But we are not just another stage of the complaints process. We are the independent, final decision-maker that brings closure to difficult problems.

We are not an enforcement agency with binding powers

We listen, investigate robustly, and get it right. Our decisions have influence because they are backed up by credible and compelling analysis. We achieve effective outcomes by working in partnership with others as part of a wider system of democratic accountability.

Our investigations provide valuable insights to help improve public services

We share the learning from individual complaints to help make things better for wider society. We try to explain simply what “good” looks like and make practical recommendations for how the organisations we investigate can make meaningful improvements, and avoid the mistakes of others. 

We can act as a warning sign when things are going wrong

Where we see evidence of wider problems, we share our findings to help others learn and improve. 

We believe in open data, public accountability and transparency

Although our investigations are conducted in private, our decisions are published for all to see. We also share insight from our work to help the public and institutions to scrutinise local services.

We believe it is always better for problems to be fixed upstream

Ideally no one would need to complain to us because the organisation concerned would already have fixed things when they’ve gone wrong. We support organisations to get better at handling complaints for the customer.  

We are not a public advocate or consumer champion

We do not carry out ‘reviews’ to establish the story of events. Our investigations establish a clear statement of complaint and make a dispassionate assessment of whether there are any gaps between what happened and what should have happened.

We look at institutional fault, not individual professional competence

We focus on public administration and service failure at a corporate level, not on individual error. We do not second-guess professional decisions made without fault, but we will challenge flawed policies and practices.

We deal with people’s objective rights, not consumer relationships

We look at what happened, what should have happened and what the impact of that was.  

We are proud to operate a system of lay justice based on common sense

Our expertise is investigation and decision making. We do not need to be lawyers or experts in any particular field, nor do we routinely need to rely on expert advice. We are unique because we can make sound and sensible ‘balance of probability’ decisions on a wide range of issues, based on a proportionate analysis of complex and contested facts.

We provide a unique form of justice, different to courts, tribunals and the judiciary

We choose what and how we investigate. It’s up to us to decide the evidence we need to make a decision. We work by asking questions.