Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the maintenance of a cemetery and damage to a grave. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part causing injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council has not accepted liability for damage to a family member’s grave and failed to carry out proper grounds maintenance at the cemetery.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr B says that on a visit to a cemetery he noted what he regarded as a poor standard of grounds maintenance. He also discovered that the memorial at his family member’s grave had been damaged. In his view, it is likely the damage was caused by grounds maintenance contractors. He complained to the Council.
7. In response to the complaint, the Council has said it has no record of the damage being caused by its contractor. That being the case, it will replace the broken slab but Mr B must arrange for the headstone to be removed before it will do so.
8. Mr B believes the Council should accept responsibility for the damage and for carrying out repairs. He also wants the Council to improve the standard of grounds maintenance at the cemetery.
9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint. The key matter turns on whether the Council was responsible for the damage to the grave. In the absence of evidence to show this was the case, it is not a matter the Ombudsman can determine. If Mr B believes he can show he has suffered financial or other damages as a result of the Council’s negligence, it would be reasonable for him to pursue the matter in court.
10. Mr B’s assertion that the cemetery is poorly maintained does not provide grounds for the Ombudsman’s intervention. Councils are responsible for grounds maintenance at their cemeteries and will normally have a policy setting out matters such as the frequency of maintenance. If Mr B has evidence that the Council has failed to carry out maintenance properly and that this has caused him significant injustice, he should put it to the Council in the first instance. There are insufficient grounds to warrant the Ombudsman’s involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman