Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s response to his complaint concerning a coroner who conducted the inquest into his wife’s death. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s response to his complaint that the coroner who conducted the inquest into his wife’s death was biased towards the NHS and staff who had been involved in his wife’s care.

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 or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I spoke to Mr X and reviewed the information he and the Council provided.

Back to top

What I found

4. Although coroners are independent judicial office holders, they are appointed and funded by local authorities and investigate deaths in the local authority’s area. Except where officers and staff are provided by the police, a local authority’s statutory and administrative function includes the provision of coroner services.
5. The Government Guide to Coroner Services says complaints about the personal conduct of a coroner should be raised first with the coroner and then with the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO). A challenge to a coroner’s decision is by judicial review only.
6. In 2019, the inquest into the death of Mr X’s wife was held. Unhappy with the outcome of the inquest and believing the coroner had shown bias towards the NHS and staff who had looked after her, Mr X sent his complaint to the coroner and the Council.
7. Mr X received a response from the coroner but did not receive one from the Council so he chased the matter up. The Council responded, apologising for its delay in replying. It said it could not investigate his complaint and provided a link to a Government website which provides details of the formal process to follow in pursuing such a complaint.

Assessment

8. The nature of Mr X’s complaint means that it is one he should direct to the JCIO. While there was some delay in it responding to Mr X’s complaint, the Council has correctly explained it cannot investigate the matter and provided a link to the Government website.
9. As there are no grounds on which to base an investigation by the Ombudsman, we will not pursue the matter further.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is no evidence of fault by the Council which would warrant an investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman