Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way the Council registered the death of the complainant’s relative. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because he has no power to investigate the General Register Office.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mrs X, says the Council should have referred the death of a relative (Mr T) to the coroner.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. We cannot investigate the General Register Office. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 25 and 34A, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered the list of acceptable causes of death written by the General Register Office (GRO). I invited Mrs X to comment on a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Acceptable deaths – GRO

5. Councils follow guidance produced by the GRO. The GRO is not part of the Council. An acceptable death, as defined by the GRO, does not need to be referred by the Council’s registrar to the coroner. The GRO says a chest infection, in someone aged 70 or over, is an acceptable cause of death. The registrar may need to refer a death caused by a chest infection, to the coroner, if the person was less than 70 years when they died.

What happened

6. Mr T died in 2017 in hospital. He was 90 when he died. A doctor certified the death and stated that Mr T died from a chest infection. The registrar recorded the death and did not refer it to the coroner.
7. Mrs X complained to the Council in 2019 about the registration and said the death should have been referred to the coroner. In response the Council explained there was no need to refer to the coroner because a chest infection is an acceptable cause of death. It said that it is the role of the certifying doctor to state the cause of death. The role of the registrar is to produce a death certificate which creates a permanent record of the deceased and the basic circumstances surrounding the death. It said the registrar had registered the death correctly and in accordance with the guidance from the GRO. It suggested Mrs X contact the coroner or the police if she remained unhappy.
8. Mrs X is dissatisfied with the Council’s response. She thinks the death should be investigated as an unnatural or suspicious death. She says the Council accepted a vague term (chest infection) rather than referring it to the coroner or seeking clarification. She says Mr T’s death should have been treated in the same way as for someone under 70 years old. She says the age difference is a breach of equality. Mrs X wants the Council to refer the death to the coroner.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigate because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council followed the GRO guidance which says that a chest infection, recorded on a medical certificate in someone aged over 70, is an acceptable cause of death and not one that the Council should refer to the coroner. The Council correctly followed the GRO guidance so there is no reason to start an investigation.
10. Mrs X may disagree that a chest infection is an acceptable cause of death and says the reference to age is discriminatory. However, the guidance is produced by the GRO and I have no power to investigate the GRO because it is not part of the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

11. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and I cannot investigate the GRO.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman