Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in failing to contact the complainant’s family about the expiry of the lease on a grave, and before removing items he had placed on the grave. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains that the Council was at fault in failing to contact his family regarding the expiry of the lease on his mother’s grave plot, and before removing items he had placed on the grave. He further complains that the matter, and his subsequent complaint, were handled without appropriate compassion.

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 do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s complaint relates to the cemetery plot containing his mother’s grave. He says he understood that his late father bought the plot’s lease and that his family therefore owned it. He says he visited the plot every few weeks to tend to it, and had placed items on it. In his view, it was therefore clear that the grave was being visited.
6. Mr X says that the items he placed on the plot were removed. He initially believed they had been stolen but the Council confirmed that it had removed the items. It told him it had given notice of its intention to do so to plot leaseholders by post and also via noticeboards at the cemetery.
7. The Council also told Mr X that the lease his father had taken out on the plot had expired. It told him it had written to Mr X’s father to inform him of this. In response to Mr X’s subsequent complaint, it set out how the family may obtain information about reinstating its rights over the plot.
8. Mr X complains that the Council failed to take appropriate steps to contact the family before the lease expired and before removing items from the plot. Specifically, he believes that writing to an address provided over thirty years ago, and making no further enquiries when no response was received, amounts to fault on the Council’s part. He believes that, as it was clear that his mother’s grave was being visited, the Council should have taken steps to establish whether the leaseholder’s details were still current, or tried to establish contact by leaving a note on the grave.
9. Mr X further complains that the Council was at fault in the way it responded to his complaint, which he says lacked compassion. He believes the Council should apologise for its handling of the matter and discuss with him how his family can regain its rights over the plot. He also believes it should review its procedures.
10. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part. The Council says, and there is no reason to doubt, that it wrote to the leaseholder regarding both the expiry of the lease and the removal of items. Mr X did not receive these letters because his late father had not lived at the address the Council held for many years. He therefore had no opportunity to take action. This is clearly unfortunate in terms of the events which followed. But the question for the Ombudsman is whether this was the result of identifiable fault on the Council’s part.
11. The Council relies on leaseholders and their families to ensure that their contact details are updated. This is not unreasonable. It says that, given the thousands of plots it is responsible for, it lacks the resources to carry out enquiries when it receives no responses to letters. Whether the Council could use its resources in a different way and make such enquiries is not a matter for the Ombudsman. That is the Council’s decision to make. The Council’s position is proportionate and defensible, and we cannot therefore criticise it or intervene to substitute an alternative view.
12. Given the emotive nature of the matters involved in Mr X’s complaint, it is understandable that he regards the Council’s response as lacking in compassion. But, without evidence that it was characterised by fault, we will not intervene. The Council’s complaint responses properly set out its position and there is no evidence of significant fault in the way they do so. There are insufficient grounds for the Ombudsman to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman