Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council has refused to take enforcement action to remove a cemetery memorial. This is because it is unlikely we would identify fault on the Council’s part causing injustice to Mr B.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council has refused to take enforcement action to remove a cemetery memorial.

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 or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• 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 have considered what Mr B has said in support of his complaint and the correspondence he has provided. I have offered him the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr B says the Council has refused to remove a cemetery memorial which is larger than permitted. He complains about this decision, and the decision to refuse to allow him to erect a memorial which also breaches the Council’s policy.
5. The Council has explained that it does not regard removal of the memorial, which was installed in 2002, as appropriate. Mr B regards this decision as unreasonable.
6. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. It is for the Council to decide whether enforcement action is appropriate and it has explained why it does not believe this is the case. Its decision appears defensible and there is no evidence of fault in the way it was made. Without evidence of fault, the Ombudsman cannot intervene to criticise the decision or substitute an alternative view. It is not for the Ombudsman to say whether the memorial should be removed.
7. It is also the case that investigation is unlikely to find the Council’s decision has caused Mr B an injustice. It does not follow that the decision not to take enforcement action to remove the memorial justifies allowing Mr B to breach the Council’s policy. There is no direct connection between the matters and no grounds for the Ombudsman to intervene.

Back to top

Final decision

8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part causing injustice to Mr B.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman