A reasoned decision connects the evidence and applicable framework to clear findings and a conclusion; it should show why the result follows.
Reasons matter because they let the parties understand the decision, correct factual mistakes and assess whether important issues were determined. A long document is not necessarily a reasoned one.
A reasoned decision need not address every sentence, but material disputed facts and decisive evidence should be dealt with sufficiently.
Key points
- Identify facts found.
- Identify evidence relied on.
- Identify framework applied.
- Identify conclusion on each important issue.
- Check whether remedy follows from findings.
The reasoning chain
| Issue | What needed deciding |
|---|---|
| Fact | What the decision-maker found happened |
| Evidence | Why that fact was accepted |
| Framework | Rule/standard applied |
| Conclusion | Outcome on issue |
| Remedy | What follows from outcome |
Common reasoning defects
- Impossible or incorrect chronology.
- Failure to address decisive contrary evidence.
- Wrong framework.
- Internal contradiction.
- Conclusion asserted without supporting analysis.
- Remedy unexplained by findings.
A decision should expose the route from evidence to conclusion
The reader should normally be able to identify the material findings of fact, see which evidence supported those findings, understand how conflicting evidence was resolved, identify the rule or standard applied and follow the reasoning to the result. A bare conclusion such as “we consider the company acted reasonably” may be a conclusion, but it is not necessarily an adequate explanation of why disputed evidence or a contrary rule did not change the outcome.
Reasons also matter to the remedy
Reasoning should not stop at liability. If fault is found but the remedy is modest, the decision should make it possible to understand how the decision-maker assessed financial loss, inconvenience, distress, correction of records or other practical redress. An unexplained remedy can be challenged separately from the underlying finding.
In practice
- Audit the chain rather than reacting only to the final result.
- Challenge material gaps with page/paragraph references.
What to do
A practical next-step plan
- Map issues.
- Extract findings.
- Test evidence/framework.
- Test internal consistency.
- Test remedy.
Common traps
Things that often confuse the issue
- Demanding reasons for imimportant points.
- Confusing an adverse reason with absence of reasoning.
Official sources
Check the rules behind this guide
- Good final complaint responses - PHSO
- How the Financial Ombudsman resolves complaints
- Complaint Handling Code - LGSCO
These are official or primary sources for this topic. Rules, scheme terms and deadlines can change, so check the live source before relying on a formal time limit or procedure.