Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about damage caused to a headstone and delays in responses to complaints. Further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. We cannot determine liability for damage. And complaints about events which occurred more than twelve months ago are too late.

The complaint

1. The complainant, I shall call Mrs X, says the Council failed to fully investigate her complaint about damage to her late father’s headstone.
2. She believes the Council has taken a position to protect it from legal action. Mrs X also says if the Council had given her information about its insurance sooner, she would have made a claim for repairs, instead of claiming on her own insurance.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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)
6. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mrs X contacted the cemetery alleging repeated damage to her late father’s headstone. The Council responded to Mrs X. They apologised for the delay in responding to her and to her brother. It says this was because of confusion about who was to reply to her.
10. The Council says Mrs X alleges the headstone has been damaged repeatedly over the last ten years. It says it has checked and has no record of damage reported by its cemetery teams. The professional view of its staff is the damage to the headstone is caused by public vehicles rather than grounds machinery. The Council has installed a knee rail to protect the grave from cars. It says its teams are aware of the matter and will monitor the situation.
11. Mrs X is not satisfied with the Council’s response. She says she and her brother have raised concerns over the last ten years. The law says a complaint must be made to the Ombudsman within twelve months of the complainant becoming aware of the matter. I have seen no reason to exercise discretion to consider issues which occurred more than a year ago.
12. The Council has considered her complaint, installed a knee rail and is monitoring the location. Mrs X has provided no evidence to show the Council is responsible for the damage, and we cannot establish liability. It has apologised for delays in its responses and says it has learned from this complaint to ensure there will be no repetition of its error.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because:
• further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome
• liability for damage is a matter for the court; and
• there are no good reasons to investigate matters which occurred more than twelve months ago.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman