Summary: The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate this complaint about damage the Council caused to grassed areas in a cemetery due to its excessive use of weed killer. This is because it is unlikely an investigation could add to the action the Council has already taken to deal with the issue.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs B, complained that the Council had indiscriminately applied an excessive amount of weed killer in a cemetery she visits which had badly disfigured large sections of the grassed areas, including around her relatives’ graves. Mrs B also complained the Council had taken too long to reinstate the grass.

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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the information Mrs B provided with her complaint and her comments in response to a draft of this decision. I also took account of the Council’s response to my enquiries in Mrs B’s case.

What I found

5. In May 2019 Mr & Mrs B complained to the Council about extensive and unsightly damage to grass surrounding graves and in other areas in the cemetery they visit. This followed the Council’s use of weed killer in the cemetery. Mr & Mrs B felt the application of the weed killer had been careless and excessive.
6. In response the Council acknowledged Mr & Mrs B’s concerns and explained the rationale behind its use of weed killer. It said this was to avoid damage by its mowers when cutting the grass close to head stones. The Council also agreed to review its use of weed killer.
7. Mr & Mrs B were not satisfied with the Council’s explanation because large areas of grass had been affected. They continued to question the Council’s actions and to stress the need for restoration of the damaged areas.
8. In August the Council responded formally to Mr & Mrs B’s complaint. The Council upheld their complaint, apologised, and said it would endeavour to restore the cemetery to its former condition.
9. Mr & Mrs B pressed the Council for details of the restorative action it would take and when this would happen. In response the Council said it would re-seed the affected areas in the autumn when weather conditions were suitable.
10. Later in the year Mr & Mrs B contacted the Council again to query why work had not started yet.
11. The Council sent a further complaint response in December saying that officers had decided to put off cultivation of the affected areas for the time being as there had been signs the grass was re-growing. The Council also said it would top seed in the following weeks and, if that was not effective, it would do further work in the spring.
12. Mr & Mrs B chased the Council again in January 2020. In response the Council said the ground had been too wet for seeding.
13. Subsequently Mrs B complained to the Ombudsman about the damage to the cemetery and the Council’s failure to take action about this or send a further response to her concerns.
14. In a recent response to my enquiries about Mrs B’s complaint the Council said it had started work in January but had to stop when the weather turned colder. But the Council also confirmed it was currently carrying out seeding at the cemetery and expected to complete this work the same week.

Back to top

Analysis

15. I have considered all of the information provided about Mrs B’s complaint. But I have reached the view that that we do not have grounds to start an investigation in her case.
16. Mrs B’s main issue with the Council was the damage she said was caused by its careless use of weed killer in the cemetery.
17. But I consider the Council has taken appropriate action to address Mrs B’s concerns regarding this matter. In particular the Council has acknowledged its excessive use of weed killer, confirmed it will not repeat this type of treatment, and has apologised to Mrs B for the distress it caused in this respect.
18. Mrs B was also concerned about the time the Council had taken to restore the grass and its failure to keep to commitments about when it would do this work.
19. But I am not convinced we would find reason to fault the Council regarding this matter. I suggest it was always going to take time for the grass to return to its previous condition. In addition, from the information provided, it appears the speed and extent of re-growth was unpredictable and dependent on time of the year, weather and ground conditions.
20. The Council evidently did not go ahead with works in the autumn or carry out seeding in January as it had expected to. But I consider the Council has provided suitable explanations as to why it was not appropriate to carry out any seeding until recently.
21. The Ombudsman may not question the merits of councils’ decisions if there is no fault in the way those decisions are made. I understand the decisions about re-seeding were made by qualified professionals in the Council, and I do not see that we are in a position to question their professional judgement in this respect on the basis of any fault.
22. In addition I note the Council was due to complete the seeding work by the end of last week. So I consider the Council has now taken appropriate action to promote the restoration of the grassed areas.
23. In the circumstances I do not see we would be justified in investigating Mrs B’s complaint. This is because it is unlikely an investigation would result in a substantively different outcome to that already provided by the Council, or a recommendation for any other remedial action on its part.

Back to top

Final decision

24. The Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the damage the Council caused to grassed areas in a cemetery due to excessive use of weed killer, and its delay in restoring the grass. This is because it is unlikely we could achieve a significantly different outcome for Mrs B regarding this matter than the one already provided by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman