Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of matters relating to Ms X’s lease of a grave and burial plot for a family member at a Woodland Burial Area (WBA) site. This is because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to her lease of a grave and burial plot for a family member at a WBA site. She says the Council discriminated against her because of her race and that others were not treated in the same way as her for infringements of WBA restrictions.

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 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council, including its response to her complaint.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. At a time of great distress, following the death of a close family member, Ms X purchased a lease for a grave plot in the WBA of a cemetery without fully understanding the restrictions within the area which is designed as a natural woodland space with only wooden memorial plaques permitted.
6. Unfortunately, when Ms X sought to mark her relative’s resting place with items and in a manner not in keeping with WBA restrictions, the Council contacted Ms X to explain how she had acted outside the regulations and sought the removal of items which were not permitted.
7. In responding to Ms X’s complaint about these matters the Council explained it was writing to all burial rights holders where a memorial had fallen outside of what is permitted and not just Ms X. It found no evidence to support Ms X’s allegations that she had been discriminated against because of her race and it noted it had had stopped contacting her for an extended period when Ms X said she was going to re-inter her relative overseas. The Council did offer Ms X a payment for its delay in responding to her complaint at the final stage of its complaints procedure.
8. This has clearly been a very upsetting time for Ms X and it is most unfortunate she did not understand the nature of the WBA when she bought the plot. However, there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council in contacting Ms X about the removal of non-permitted items at the site or that she had been discriminated against. The Council acknowledged its delay in responding at the final stage of its complaints procedure but there is no evidence to suggest fault by the Council which warrants investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find evidence of fault by the Council sufficient to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman