Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a member of staff at a crematorium. This is because an investigation by this office would not be able to add to the response already provided by the Council’s previous investigation of the matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, complains a member of staff at a crematorium prevented family members from attending her husband’s ceremony when they arrived a few minutes late.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We do not start an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X complained to the Council that a crematorium worker prevented some family members from attending her husband’s ceremony after they arrived a few minutes late. Mrs X did not witness the events as she was attending the ceremony.
7. Mrs X has confirmed she is not making this complaint on behalf of the family members. She is complaining solely in her own right about the distress the matter has caused her.
8. The Council investigated Mrs X’s complaint. This included viewing the available CCTV footage of the events, which did not have sound and did not cover all events; interviewing the officers in attendance; considering information provided by one of the family members and the information Mrs X provided.
9. The Council did not uphold the complaint. The parties present provided significantly differing recollections and accounts of what happened and it was unable to reach a firm view on all events. It said there had clearly been an unfortunate miscommunication between the two parties which led to the family members not attending the service before it ended but it did not find the officer misled the family or tried to cover up what happened.
10. The Council has carried out a full and thorough investigation which considered all the available information on the matter. Both parties give differing recollections and accounts of events here and the Council’s investigation and its findings reflects this. I do not see that an investigation by this office would be able to add to the responses already provided by the Council’s previous investigation. The available information has already been considered and it would not be possible for us to reliably reconcile the differing accounts. This does not mean that I doubt either party’s account of events.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because an investigation by this office could not add to the response already provided via the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman