Summary: Ms X complains the Council was wrong to allow work to take place at a burial plot owned by a deceased relative but for which no transfer of ownership had taken place. We will not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council allowed unauthorised work to take place at a relative’s grave where a new headstone and additional names had been added. She says as no transfer of ownership had taken place from the legal owner who died in the 1970s, the work was unauthorised. She wants the Council to take action to remove the headstone and memorials and compensate her for her distress.

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 impact 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, including its response to the complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X complained to the Council that it had allowed unauthorised work to take place at a relative’s grave where a new headstone and additional names had been added. She said the grave owner had died in the 1970s and that there had been no transfer of ownership so the work had been unauthorised.
6. The Council did not uphold Ms X’s complaint. It explained it had no legal requirement to remove the headstone. It had been inspected and found to be safe. It told Ms X its records still showed the grave owner as being her relative who had died in the 1970s and that while the exclusive right of burial may be transferred on the death of the registered owner, this had not taken place. It advised Ms X it was open to her to apply as the lawful next of kin and if successful she would become responsible to erect and maintain headstones on the grave and could make changes to remove names and memorials she did not want there.
7. While Ms X may be disappointed by the outcome of her complaint to the Council, there are no grounds to suggest fault which warrants an investigation by the Ombudsman. The Council has explained why it is not obliged to take any action in relation to the headstone and it has given Ms X information about how to apply for ownership of the grave if she believes she is the lawful next of kin.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman