Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue a credit note in relation to burial fees. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mr X, is a funeral director. Mr X arranged a funeral in September 2020. The person buried was a resident of the Council’s area, but Mr X did not provide proof of this until after the burial. This means the Council charged the non-resident rate which is higher. Mr X wants the Council to issue a credit note for the difference, but it has so far refused.

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. (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 Mr X’s complaint and the information he provided. I also gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on his complaint.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X is a funeral director. Mr X arranged a funeral in September 2020. The person buried was a resident of the Council’s area, but Mr X did not provide the Council with proof of this until after the burial. This means the Council charged the burial rate for a non-resident. This is higher than the amount charged for people who were resident in the Council’s area. Mr X wants the Council to issue a credit note for the difference, but it has so far refused.
6. In its response to Mr X’s complaint the Council said:
• It had a longstanding policy of requiring residency information before funerals. This followed an audit investigation which identified a high number of invoices being amended via credit notes because of paperwork being submitted late.
• The Council reminded Mr X to submit proof of residency five days before the funeral.
• Mr X only sent proof of residency a month after the funeral and after the invoice was generated.
• Bereavement Services had correctly followed the Council’s policy and there were no grounds to issue a credit note.
7. I understand Mr X is disappointed with the Council’s decision. But we would only be able to question it if there was fault in the way it was reached. Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council is simply applying its agreed policy. It reminded Mr X of the need to submit proof of residency before the funeral, but this did not happen. The Council has explained the rationale for its policy and has decided there are no good reasons to make an exception. This is a decision the Council is entitled to reach. In the absence of fault in the decision-making process it is not one we can question.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman