Summary: Mrs X complained about the actions taken by the Council when it removed the surround from her mother’s grave without her knowledge and then, after it had agreed to lay grass on the grave, failed to properly care for it. Mrs X said this caused her and her sister distress. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council:
• failed to amend its records when she informed it of her change of address;
• provided her with incorrect information about the installation of a frame over her mother’s grave;
• removed the frame without informing her and desecrated the grave in the process;
• was rude to her when she phoned to report what had happened; and
• agreed to replace the frame with grass but did not complete this properly and then failed to look after the grass which has now died.
2. Mrs X says she and her family are devastated and have been caused stress and trauma because of the Council’s actions. She wants the grass replacing, an apology from the Council officer she said spoke rudely to her and answers to a number of questions. She said she will then accept the £250 the Council has offered her as a reimbursement for the surround.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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 considered Mrs X’s view of her complaint.
6. I spoke to the Council and considered the information it provided.
7. I looked at photographs Mrs X and the Council sent me of the grave.
8. I wrote to Mrs X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

9. Mrs X’s mother died in 2008. Mrs X was the registered grave owner and so when she moved in 2016 she said she wrote to the Council with her change of address.
10. Mrs X and her sister found that when the cemetery grass was cut, the headstone would need cleaning which they found difficult. Therefore, in April 2018, Mrs X looked at the Council’s website for information about installing a surround around the base of the headstone.
11. Mrs X said she found the information on the website unclear and so she phoned the Council for advice. She said she was told that she could install a surround in front of the headstone and was given the permitted measurements. Mrs X said she was told she did not need permission to install the frame.
12. The surround was fitted in August 2018.
13. In March 2019, Mrs X visited her mother’s grave. She said she found that the surround had been removed, the headstone was covered in mud, bags of rubble were strewn over the grave and leaning against the headstone and the plants were piled on top of each other. A new grave had been dug to the side of her mother’s grave.
14. Mrs X phoned the Police and reported her mother’s grave had been desecrated. The Police advised her to phone the Council.
15. Mrs X said that when she phoned the Council, the officer was rude and patronising towards her. They said the surround had been removed because it was too big and she did not have permission. When the neighbouring plot needed to be excavated for a burial the Council had to remove the surround quickly because it was encroaching onto the neighbouring plot.
16. The officer said they had written to Mrs X to inform her than the surround had been removed and this had gone to the address on the Council’s system. Mrs X said this was her old address.
17. Mrs X complained to the Council. The Council responded and said:
• it had no record of Mrs X’s letter informing it of her new address;
• the surround was too large and encroached onto the plots on either side of their mother’s grave;
• once the surround was removed, the stone chippings were loose and so these were collected and put in black bags and placed behind the headstone; and
• the Council had written to Mrs X and told her what had happened and said the surround could be collected from the cemetery.
18. The Council said “Having investigated this matter, I understand you family’s upset and apologise for this. It appears that the letter informing you of the work that had been carried out, did not arrive because the council had a previous address on record. We acknowledge how distressing this would have been to your family when visiting your mother’s grave on Mother’s Day”.
19. The Council said it spoke to Mrs X and Mrs S. The Chief Executive personally apologised and met the family at the graveside to agree the additional works to the grave. These were to adapt the surround so it was the correct size and to reinstate it, put some new chippings down, ensure the grave area was tidy and to lay some flowers on the grave.
20. The Council subsequently carried out these actions.
21. Mrs X remained unhappy and complained again. The Council’s response stated:
• it had not received the change of address letter which was why notification of the removal of the surround had gone to the old address;
• the size of the surround was not spotted until the neighbouring plot was visited because a burial was due to take place the following day. At that point urgent action had to take place to remove it;
• the Council and Mrs X had differing views about the state her mother’s grave was left in;
• it would speak to the officer Mrs X was upset with but it did not have a recording of the call;
• it understood the Council’s actions did not meet the family’s expectations and that as a result, it had refitted the altered frame with new felt and gravel and when the family did not like that, had removed this and grassed the area.
22. The Council apologised again for the family’s upset and offered to reimburse them £250 which was the cost of the frame.
23. Mrs X returned the £250 and complained to the Ombudsman. She said the grass had died because the Council had not watered it. She sent me a photograph of the grave.
24. As part of my enquiries I spoke to the Council and considered the photographs it sent me. The Council said that “The grave footprint is 3ft x 7ft… Our rules and regulations state that we may permit 6” in front of a memorial and this does depend on the actual size of any installation already. Therefore, all requests for gardens have to be sent to the cemetery administrator, we then physically have to visit the grave and check the size of an existing memorial before spray painting out the allowed area for the family. A letter is then sent to the grave owner confirming permission granted… There is no record of any request for a garden being sent, if she had, she would have received a confirmation letter from us giving permission with sizes… The cage that she had placed on the grave... protruded both sides by another foot”.

My findings

25. Mrs X says she informed the Council of her new address in 2016. The Council said it did not receive this. There is no evidence either way to say what happened. I will not investigate this further as I would not be able to resolve this.
26. When the Council realised that it would have to remove the surround, it wrote to Mrs X at the address it had on its system to explain what had happened. Although Mrs X did not receive this letter because she had moved, the Council acted without fault because it wrote to the most recent address it had for her.
27. Mrs X says she phoned the Council for advice and was misinformed about the measurements of the frame and the need for permission. The Council says it has no record of these matters and that if Mrs X had phoned or written to ask for a garden area in front of the headstone, it would have sent her a confirmation letter with the sizes permitted.
28. There is a verbal dispute about what was said during the telephone call. I was not present when it took place and there is no recording. I cannot say what happened or what was discussed so I will not investigate this matter further.
29. Mrs X and Mrs S and the Council have differing views of the state of the grave once the surround was removed. However, the Council agreed to reinstall the adapted surround and lay new gravel. When Mrs X and Mrs S remained unhappy, the Council then removed it and replaced some of the area with grass. The Council did not carry out these actions because it had acted with fault. These were goodwill gestures, which recognised the distress of the family.
30. Mrs X wants the Ombudsman to recommend the Council replace the grass and water it. The Council has not acted with fault; therefore, the Ombudsman does not have the power to request that it take further action. The Council has no obligation to do any more.
31. Mrs X said the Council officer she spoke to was rude and she wants them to apologise. There is no record of the call and so I cannot know what happened. The Ombudsman considers the Council to be a single corporate body. Therefore, even if we found fault, we would not recommend an apology from an individual officer. The Council has already apologised on two occasions for any upset the family has experienced which was appropriate action to take. I will not investigate this matter any further.

Back to top

Final decision

32. There was no fault in the Council’s actions. Therefore, I have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman