Summary: Mr B complains that the Council has lost records relating to his purchases of memorial items installed at a cemetery, meaning he cannot prove ownership of them. He also complains that the items were substandard and that the Council offered poor levels of customer care. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr B, is unhappy that the Council no longer holds all records relating to his purchases of memorial items installed at a cemetery. As a result, he says he will not be able to prove ownership of the items. He also complains that the items were substandard and in need of repair.

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 could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr B gave to the Ombudsman in his complaint. I have also considered the information the Council provided to him.
4. Mr B has had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr B purchased memorial items for a grave in a Council cemetery between 2006 and 2011. He complains that the items took too long to arrive and when they did they were of poor quality.
6. Mr B was concerned about potential vandalism at the cemetery and contacted the Council in 2013, asking it to provide proof of his purchases and ownership of the items, in case he needed to exercise his legal rights in the future or claim on insurance if vandalism did occur.
7. The Council informed Mr B that it was unable to locate his records and that it only holds records for 6 years, so it was likely the records had been destroyed.
8. Mr B made a formal complaint about the Council’s poor service and the fact it could not locate his records.
9. In May 2013, the Council responded. It did not uphold Mr B’s complaint and provided Mr B with receipts relating to two of his purchases. It also informed Mr B of his right to complain to the Ombudsman, which he did.
10. In June 2013, the Council wrote to Mr B again, providing him with another receipt relating to another purchase.
11. In 2019 Mr B complained again. The Council responded by confirming that records had already been provided for three of his purchases and it did not intend to reopen the investigation as the matter had already been investigated by the Ombudsman in 2013. It also reiterated that further records were no longer available as the Council is only required to retain them for 6 years.

Back to top

Analysis

12. Mr B contacted the Council about his records in 2013. He was informed at the time that records were only retained for 6 years. He was provided with records relating to the three purchases which he now complains about. He was also informed of his right to complain to the Ombudsman, which he did.
13. If Mr B considers that the Council’s file retention policy is not in line with the principles determining data protection, he can complain to the Information Commissioner who is a more appropriate body to decide on this point.
14. Mr B brought his complaint to the Ombudsman again in 2019, six years later. The fact that Mr B is still challenging the Council’s position on this does not provide a reason for the Ombudsman to reopen the complaint.
15. The ongoing customer service issues Mr B complains of do not by themselves constitute a significant enough injustice for the Ombudsman to investigate and it is not a good use of public resources to investigate if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
16. Regarding the condition of the items he purchased and whether they were fit for purpose, as a consumer, Mr B has legal rights which he can exercise. It is not part of the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether those rights have been breached.

Back to top

Final decision

17. I have decided that the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome and the complaint is late.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman