Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s management of its cemeteries. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. It is also unlikely we could add to the Council’s response.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained about the Council’s decision to allow the public to walk dogs in its cemeteries. Mr X says some dog owners allow their pets to foul on gravestones and elsewhere in the cemeteries. Mr X’s relatives are buried in a council cemetery. He would like the Council to ban dogs from its cemeteries. Mr X also complained about the Council’s maintenance staff leaving grass cuttings on headstones.

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 may decide not to start an investigation if 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. In its response to Mr X’s complaints the Council said elected members had considered whether to ban dogs from cemeteries. Rather than a full ban, councillors had decided dogs must be kept on a lead when in a cemetery. This decision would be reviewed in three years and could be changed if there was enough supporting evidence.
6. The Council said it was sorry about grass cuttings being left on headstones. At both stage 1 and 2 of the Council’s responses it said it would be raising this issue with its contractor. It said that because of poor performance one member of the contractor’s staff would not be having their contract renewed.
7. The role of the Ombudsman is to look for administrative fault. It is not our role to say what policies councils should operate. So, while I understand Mr X would like dogs to be banned from the Council’s cemeteries, this is not a decision for the Ombudsman. The Council has explained its current policy to Mr X. Requiring dogs to be on leads, rather than a complete ban, is a decision the Council is entitled to take. While I understand how upset Mr X is by the issue at the heart of his complaint, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council for the Ombudsman to become involved. Ultimately, dogs fouling on graves is due to the behaviour of the owners of the dogs, rather than any fault by the Council.
8. As far as the grass cuttings on headstones is concerned, the Council has raised this issue with its contractor. This is what we would expect the Council to do. If we were to investigate this point it is difficult to see what more we could achieve. We will not therefore start an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council, and it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman