London Borough of Lambeth (19 010 757)
Category : Environment and regulation > Cemeteries and crematoria
Decision : Upheld
Decision date : 20 Nov 2019
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about problems the complainant had in getting a memorial plaque for his late father’s grave. This is because the Council has already provided a fair and proportionate remedy and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
- The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, is unhappy with the remedy offered by the Council after problems he experienced in getting a plaque for his late father’s grave. Mr X wants financial compensation.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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 an investigation if we believe:
- the Council has already provided a fair remedy, or
- it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I invited Mr X to comment on a draft of this decision.
What I found
What happened
- Mr X’s father died in 2016. In January 2018 Mr X ordered a memorial plaque. The Council asked for a photograph for the plaque which Mr X supplied in April. Unfortunately the Council lost the photograph. In May it contacted Mr X to explain what had happened and to apologise. It asked for a new photograph which Mr X supplied in July. The Council installed the plaque in August 2018.
- Mr X complained. In response the Council accepted it had lost the photograph and that it had been unable to find out what had happened. It said it would remind staff of the importance of taking care of personal items. It apologised for the distress and said it would refund the £168 fee for the plaque and extend the lease for the burial chamber by five years. The lease extension equates to a value of £945.
- Mr X is unhappy with the remedy. He wants financial compensation rather than an extension. He says he has been unable to grieve for his father, has had sleepless nights and was unable to mark anniversaries as the plaque was not in place.
Assessment
- The Council lost the photograph which was distressing for Mr X and meant it took longer to get the plaque installed. However, I will not start an investigation because the Council has already provided a fair remedy and one that is more generous than we would have requested. If the Council had not offered a remedy we might have asked for a refund of the fee. But, we would not have also asked for a financial remedy. I appreciate the lease will not expire for many years but, when it does, Mr X will benefit from a significant saving and will not have to renew the lease for another five years. The remedy is fair and proportionate and, while Mr X may prefer financial compensation, there is nothing wrong with the Council’s offer.
Final decision
- I will not start an investigation because the Council has offered a fair remedy and it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman