Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council has responded to her allegation that it illegally exhumed her late uncle’s ashes and refuses to confirm the new location. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has covered up the illegal exhumation of her late uncle’s cremated remains when reopening her family plot and interring her late brother’s ashes in November 2017.
2. She also complains it refuses to provide her with information she has requested and refuses to meet her to discuss her concerns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome

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

5. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about access to information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

6. The law says the Ombudsman cannot investigate allegation of criminal acts. Such matters should be reported to the police.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered:
• the information provided by Mrs X
• the Council’s responses to her complaint
• Mrs X’s many comments on the 2 draft versions of this decision

Back to top

What I found

8. The Ombudsman would normally expect to receive a complaint within a year of someone becoming aware of the events complained of, unless there were exceptional reasons for the delay. In this case the events Mrs X complains of occurred in 2017. Therefore, her complaint is late. However, as she has been actively pursuing her complaint since then, I am prepared to exercise discretion and consider her concerns.
9. In November 2017 the Council opened Mrs X’s family grave plot for interring her late brother’s ashes. When opening the plot, a cemetery worker handed Mrs X’s sister two gold rings found in the grave space. Mrs X says she placed these rings inside in her late uncles’ casket before burial some years before.
10. Mrs X says her uncle's casket was biodegradable and overtime his ashes and the two rings became mixed with the earth.
11. She says the cemetery worker who gave her sister the rings admitted disturbing her her late uncle’s ashes when excavating the plot. She says this is an admission that her uncle’s ashes were exhumed without consent from the family.
12. A licence is required to exhume any human remains. The Council confirms it did not apply for a licence and it has not removed any ashes. So, if Mrs X believes her late uncles’ ashes have been illegally exhumed, she should report this matter to the police. The Ombudsman cannot investigate allegations of criminal acts.
13. Mrs X complains the Council is covering up the illegal exhumation and refuses to provide her with information she has requested. And she wants to meet the cemetery workers who were on duty (and who she spoke to) when the plot was opened in November 2017.
14. The Council says it has interviewed the workers who confirmed that no casket or ashes were removed when the plot was reopened. It has refused to provide the names of the staff in question as it has a duty of care to its officers. It says it is unsure as to the benefit such a meeting would bring. And it has offered Mrs X a meeting with a senior officer responsible for the service instead.
15. The Council is not obliged to arrange a meeting between Mrs X and the cemetery workers. There is no fault in its decision to offer her a meeting with a senior officer instead. Without fault in the Council’s actions, the Ombudsman will not suggest any remedy. The Council has provided a detailed explanation as to how it believes the rings came to be present in the grave. I do not consider that any further investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a different outcome on this point.
16. Regarding her complaint that the Council refuses to provide her with information she has repeatedly asked for, I understand Mrs X has already referred the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). This is the body with specific powers and expertise to look into complaints about access to information. The Information Commissioner’s Officer has powers which the Ombudsman does not have to require compliance with the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
17. Mrs X says she is aware the Ombudsman cannot look at the criminal act of illegally exhuming remains. But she wants us to consider its handling of her complaint which she says has be obstructive.
18. The Ombudsman does not consider it a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. If we consider that the original complaint is not something that we can investigate then we will not investigate the complaint about the complaints process alone. This is because we do not consider there can be sufficient injustice to the complainant solely because of failings in the complaints process to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I will not investigate this complaint because:
• We are unlikely to find fault
• It is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council
• Further investigation of Mrs X’s complaint is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.
• The ICO is the appropriate body to consider her complaint about the Council’s refusal to give her information she is seeking.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman