Summary: Mrs X complained about a Service Provider, working on behalf of the Council. She said it took a year for it to action her request for a commemorative plaque following the death of her Aunt. The Service Provider failed to respond to Mrs X’s request in a timely manner. This caused Mrs X avoidable distress as well as significant time and trouble. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused by the Service Provider’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Service Provider, working on behalf of the Council took a year to action her request for a commemorative plaque following the death of her Aunt.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
3. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although we found fault with the service of the provider, we have made recommendations to the Council.
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have considered Mrs X’s complaint and supporting information.
6. I have also considered the Council’s response.
7. Mrs X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have considered these comments.

Back to top

What I found

8. Cemeteries should be managed and operated in accordance with the Local Authorities’ Cemeteries Order 1977, as amended by the Local Authorities (Amendment) Order 1986.
9. The Council published Cemetery Regulations in 2005. This covers burials, cremations, memorials and general conduct in cemeteries. It says that a person must complete an application form (obtainable from the Cemeteries Office) and receive written authorisation from the Burial Authority, before any memorial may be erected in a cemetery or inscription placed on a memorial.
10. The Council uses an external Service Provider to manage its cemeteries and provision of commemorative items.

What happened

Request for an alteration to a commemorative plaque

11. Mrs X’s Aunt died in December 2017. On 21 December, Mrs X contacted the Council. She asked whether the Council could alter her Uncle’s commemorative plaque to add her Aunt’s details. On the same day, the Council responded. It said it could do this. The Council said the Service Provider would contact her with an application form in the new year.
12. On 27 December, the Service Provider emailed Mrs X. It asked for her details, the wording required on the plaque and the location of the rose bush where the plaque is erected. Mrs X responded on 3 January 2018. She said it was the day of her Aunt’s funeral so she would send through the details shortly. Mrs X sent through the information on 11 January.

Delays

13. A week later, Mrs X emailed the Service Provider as she had not heard anything. Two weeks later, she emailed again. After another 11 days, and no response to her emails, Mrs X rang the Service Provider. It said commemorative plaques are only dealt with twice a year. It said it would send out the paperwork in March or April 2018.
14. By May, Mrs X had still not received the paperwork. She phoned the Service Provider. It said it was very busy and would send through the price and application form shortly.
15. Two weeks later, the Service Provider sent Mrs X an email with an application form attached. This was the wrong form. Mrs X emailed the Service Provider the next day to report the error.
16. A month later, Mrs X chased the Service Provider again as she had not heard anything. The following week, Mrs X submitted a complaint to the Council about the lack of progress.
17. At the end of July, Mrs X chased the progress of the plaque again. The Service Provider responded and asked for the details again. Mrs X sent the information despite having provided this information on two previous occasions.
18. In September, the Service Provider sent Mrs X the correct application form for a commemorative plaque. It also confirmed it had visited the park and had identified the rose bush where the altered plaque would be erected. Mrs X sent the completed form back to the Service Provider.
19. On 30 October, Mrs X emailed the Service Provider for an update. It did not respond.
20. In December 2018, the Service Provider, on behalf of the Council erected the plaque.

Mrs X’s complaint

21. In July 2018, Mrs X submitted a complaint to the Council about the lack of progress with the plaque. The Council responded in a timely manner. It apologised for the delay. It explained that the Service Provider had a very large workload. It also said there was a problem with the plaque supplier.
22. Mrs X responded. She acknowledged the Service Provider was very busy but said she sent the Council her request 7 months ago, in December 2017. Mrs X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to Stage 2 of the complaints process.
23. In November, Mrs X sent a further letter to the Council and included a list of dates of correspondence about the issue.
24. In December, the Council sent a final response to Mrs X about her complaint. It apologised again and explained the workload issues of the Service Provider.
25. Mrs X wrote to the Council in January. She explained that its latest response was too little, too late. She said that she has received an invoice for £117 for the plaque. She asked the Council whether it would consider reducing the cost of the plaque given the time and trouble and emotional distress the Council has caused over the past year.
26. The Council responded. It said it considered the matter to be resolved. It would not offer any compensation via the reduction in cost of the plaque.

Analysis

27. The Service Provider on behalf of the Council took a year to action a request to alter a commemorative plaque. During the year, Mrs X contacted the Service Provider numerous times to chase the progress of her request. The Service Provider failed to respond to Mrs X and delayed progress for a year.
28. When Mrs X initially contacted the Council, it said the Service Provider would be in touch shortly with an application form for the plaque. When Mrs X spoke to the Service Provider over a month later, it said these requests are only dealt with twice a year. Mrs X should have been told this from the outset in order to manage her expectations.
29. The Service Provider eventually sent Mrs X a form but this was the wrong form. In isolation, I would accept this as a minor error. However, given that it took the Service Provider five months to send the form, this is unacceptable.
30. In its response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council placed responsibility for the delay on the Service Provider. It said that its role had been expanded. It went on to say that whilst in theory the additional duty was manageable, the reality was the number of requests for commemorative items had escalated and the Service Provider was struggling to cope.
31. It is the Council’s responsibility to ensure that external service providers provide the level of service that is expected of them. There is fault here.
32. The Council has apologised to Mrs X for the delays. It also said it is working with the Service Provider as a matter of urgency to ensure that it does not face similar delays in the future.
33. In response to my draft decision, the Council confirmed the workload matter had been resolved. It said all memorial benches, plaques etc are being dealt with directly by the Facilities Management Team rather than the Cemetery Department. It said this has been working very well since the change.

Agreed action

34. Within 4 weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Pay Mrs X £200 for the time and trouble it has taken her to pursue this issue for a year; and
• Pay Mrs X £300 for the avoidable distress caused by the lack of progress of her request. Given the circumstances of her request, Mrs X was already distressed and the Service Provider’s actions prolonged and added to this distress.
35. Within 12 weeks of my final decision, the Council will work with the Service Provider to review:
• the resources available for the service;
• the workloads of individual staff members;
• the procedures for commemorative plaques and similar memorials. This should be a transparent process with clear timescales to manage the expectations of applicants; and
• training available to staff dealing with bereaved customers.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I uphold Mrs X’s complaint. The Service Provider working on behalf of the Council was at fault for delaying progress on Mrs X’s request for a plaque. This caused her an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman