Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to close the main gates to a cemetery. This is because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mr X, complains about the Council’s decision to close the main gates of the cemetery he visits regularly to tend his parents’ graves. He and other cemetery visitors now have to use the side gates which are less accessible and in an unsightly location.

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 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the information Mr X has sent us about his complaint. I also invited him to comment on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. In February 2019 the Council decided to close the main gates to the cemetery Mr X visits regularly to tend his parents’ graves. Visitors were told to use the side gates instead. Mr X contacted the Council about the closure. It told him concerns had been raised about anti-social behaviour in the cemetery and the majority responding to the local community consultation had asked for the main gates to be closed. The closure was for a temporary period and would be reviewed again in June 2019.
5. A local community meeting was held in August 2019. Following this the Council told Mr X the closure of the main gates had had an impact on the anti-social behaviour and it had decided to continue the trial closure until March 2020.
6. Mr X complained to the Council about its decision. He told it the side gates were far less accessible to visitors than the main gates causing inconvenience to him and other users. The side gates were unsightly and in an unpleasant location. And the Council was at fault for failing to use other available powers or solutions to resolve the anti-social behaviour issues, instead of simply closing the main gates.

Assessment

7. I understand that having to enter and leave the cemetery by the side gates, instead of the main gates, adds to Mr X’s journey time. But this additional journey time does not seem to have been significantly increased by the closure of the main gates. And it is limited to the occasions of Mr X’s visits.
8. Mr X has told us the main gates form an attractive entrance to the cemetery, unlike the side gates. But although Mr X is unhappy about the appearance of the side gates, again, this inconvenience is limited to the occasions he passes through them on the way to his parents’ graves.
9. I appreciate Mr X’s concern about the closure of the main gates. He is a regular visitor to the cemetery and spends time there tending his parents’ graves. But I do not consider the extent of the injustice caused by the fault Mr X says the Council has made in closing the main gates is so significant as to warrant an investigation by us.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman