Summary: Mrs K complained the Council did not cut the grass in a cemetery, causing it to become overgrown and inaccessible. She also complains the Council did not respond to her complaint about this. We consider the fact the Council did not cut the grass to be service failure, and that there was fault because it did not respond to Mrs K’s complaint. It has agreed to apologise to her for this and offer her a remedy payment for her time and trouble.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mrs K.
2. Mrs K complains the Council did not cut the grass in a cemetery where her relative is buried, causing it to become overgrown and preventing access to graves. Mrs K says she finds this disrespectful. She also complains the Council did not respond to her formal complaint about this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mrs K and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs K’s relative is buried in a council-owned cemetery. On 28 May 2024, after a visit, she emailed the cemetery manager to complain it had become overgrown. She said she found it disrespectful to the families of people buried in the cemetery, which included war graves, and that her husband had resorted to cutting the grass around her relative’s grave himself. Mrs K also forwarded a copy of the email to the Council.
7. The Council responded on the same day. It said there had been an unavoidable delay in grass cutting due to staff shortages and “other operational difficulties”, but that a new team had started work that week and would be cutting grass in all the cemeteries over the following weeks. Mrs K replied to seek clarification, and the Council said its head of service would contact her direct.
8. On 4 June Mrs K emailed the Council again, to complain she had received no further information. She asked for the Council leader to investigate the situation.
9. After further chasing by Mrs K, the Council emailed her on 12 June to inform her it generally aimed to respond to emails within 14 days. However, as it had registered her email as a stage 1 complaint, its target for responding was 20 working days, which meant its response was due by 25 June.
10. Mrs K emailed the Council on 26 June. She said the grass had still not been cut in the cemetery, and having received no response to her stage 1 complaint, she now wished to escalate it to stage 2 of the Council’s procedure.
11. Again after further chasing, the Council emailed Mrs K on 4 July to confirm it was investigating her complaint at stage 2.
12. After still receiving no response, and after even further chasing by Mrs K, she referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 21 August.

Back to top

Analysis

13. At the beginning of my investigation, I asked the Council to tell me its normal grass cutting schedule for the relevant cemetery, and the date or dates on which it eventually cut the grass there in 2024.
14. The Council replied to say it has no formal written policy setting out a schedule for grass cutting in its cemeteries. It also says it has no record showing when the grass was cut in 2024.
15. There is, to my understanding, no requirement for the Council to have either of these things, and so I cannot say this, in itself, is fault. However, this does mean I cannot make a precise analysis of how far from its schedule the Council’s maintenance of the cemetery strayed in 2024.
16. Either way, the Council’s correspondence with Mrs K confirms it had not started the grass cutting programme when it had intended to, due to staff shortages and other operational difficulties. I asked the Council to elaborate on the last point, and it said there had been problems with adverse weather and some of its machinery.
17. This is unfortunate. The Council clearly cannot be held responsible for delays caused by weather conditions, and I also accept there are circumstances where equipment failure and staff shortages fall outside the Council’s immediate control. This said, Mrs K noted at the end of June that grass cutting was still yet to start, and without more information from the Council, I cannot easily reconcile its explanation with this fact.
18. On balance, I consider it most appropriate and proportionate to make a finding of service failure, with respect to the Council’s failure to begin cutting the grass on time. We use this term where, although there has been fault by the relevant organisation, we cannot say confidently this was due to active maladministration. A finding is a simple, objective finding of fact, which is not intended to imply blame.
19. However, I remain satisfied this service failure caused some distress to Mrs K, because of the difficulty it created for her in tending her relative’s grave. I consider the Council should write a formal letter of apology to her to recognise this.
20. Separately, the Council has also explained it has recently received additional funding for cemetery maintenance, allowing it to create and equip a new team, which has already begun work to cut the grass in its cemeteries. This being so, I do not consider there is any value in recommending the Council carry out any service improvements, to prevent a recurrence of the events Mrs K has complained about.
21. I also asked the Council to explain why it failed to provide any substantive response to Mrs K’s complaint, at either stage 1 or 2. It replied:

“This appears to have been the result of resource issues within the service, partially due to sickness absence, and some confusion regarding which officer was responding to the complaint for which we apologise.

“We are in the process of reviewing the Council’s complaints processes and resourcing with a view to establishing a centralised resource which will have greater oversight.  In addition, work is being undertaken at service level to ensure that each complaint is clearly allocated to a named in [sic] investigating officer on the system so that any potential delays due to sickness can be easily identified, any confusion over who is dealing with a matter is mitigated and issues can be more quickly escalated.”

22. Again, while I recognise the obstacles created by staff absences, it is a little difficult to reconcile this with the Council’s wholesale failure to respond to Mrs K’s complaint. I am therefore satisfied this amounts to fault, and that this fault served to reinforce Mrs K’s distress and frustration at the Council’s failure to cut the grass.
23. To remedy this, I consider the Council should again write a formal letter of apology to Mrs K, and also offer her £100 to reflect her time and trouble in pursuing her complaint.

Back to top

Action

24. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• write a formal letter of apology to Mrs K, to recognise her distress and frustration, both at its failure to cut the grass in the cemetery, and also its failure to respond substantively to her complaint. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings; and
• offer to pay Mrs K £100 to reflect her time and trouble pursuing her complaint.

25. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

26. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman