Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council charging more for burial costs to a non-resident person, than it does to one of its residents. It is unlikely we would find fault, and the Council’s actions have not caused X a significant personal injustice. In addition, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable.

The complaint

1. X complained the Council was wrong to charge an increased burial fee, to residents, who did not live in its area, over residents who do live in its area. They said the amount it charged was significantly more and was unfair to the non-resident people they encounter.
2. X said the Council cannot show how it properly made this decision and wants it to review the charge

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 continue 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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. X complained to the Council about its decision to charge additional burial costs to people who do not live in its area, when compared to a resident. The Council replied and explained it published its fees as agreed in its constitution. It also set out the legislation that allowed it to set fees locally. Finally, it provided X with an explanation for why it set different fees, including the fact it followed a principle that residents already contribute to costs through local taxation.
6. Given its explanation here, it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision-making here.
7. X provided us with information about how the Council’s approach to burial costs has impacted upon them, because of the contact they have with people affected by the increased costs.
8. We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation.
9. In addition, we will not normally investigate a complaint where the complainant appears to be using their enquiry as a way of raising something of general concern, but where they have not suffered a direct injustice or loss.
10. X is not a direct recipient of the services and the charge they are concerned about. Therefore, I am not satisfied the impact X describes because of the Council’s policy, is a significant personal injustice, directly affecting them.
11. Finally, we could not say whether a charging policy is lawful, discriminatory, or require a council to change its fees or charging structure. Setting burial charges is also a matter of local policy and discretion for the Council.
12. Because of my considerations relating to how we decide whether to investigate a complaint or not, as referenced in paragraphs six, 10 and 11, I will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find fault, there is no significant personal injustice and no worthwhile outcome achievable.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman