Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to take action after a name was removed from a relative’s gravestone. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely that we could achieve any outcome or suitable remedy for the complainant.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council took no action when other relatives removed a name from a headstone of one of her relatives. She says the Council should have the name re-instated at their expense because they failed to follow the correct procedure.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 would find fault, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information which Mrs X submitted with her complaint. I have also considered the Council’s cemeteries policy and the relevant legislation. Mrs X has been given an opportunity to comment on a draft copy of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mrs X says a name was removed from a relative’s headstone without the Council’s authorisation in 2019. She says the relative’s siblings had applied to have the name removed in 2017 but this was refused by the Council because they failed to use an approved stonemason. Since then, the name has been removed without authorisation.
5. The Council says it did not authorise the work. Its policy does not include the unauthorised removal of inscriptions, only the addition of inscriptions and headstones. This is an unusual situation, and it is for the Council as cemetery authority to use its discretion over such a matter.
6. Mrs X is not one of the owners of the grave, this is shared by the siblings of the deceased. It is for the Council to decide what it should do in the circumstances and to deal with the grave owners directly.
7. Because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council, or any outcome which the Ombudsman could achieve for the complainant we will not consider the matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We should not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely that we could achieve any outcome or suitable remedy for the complainant.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman