Summary: We have not investigated this complaint, that the Council has failed to maintain an effective coroner’s service. This is because we do not have the legal jurisdiction to investigate the core substantive issue, a delay by the coroner in holding an inquest.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr B.
2. Mr B complains there has been a significant delay by the local coroner’s office in holding an inquest into the death of his partner. He considers this is due to a failure by the Council to maintain an effective service.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. The courts have said we can decide not to investigate a complaint about any action by an organisation concerning a matter which the law says we cannot investigate. (R (on the application of M) v Commissioner for Local Administration [2006] EHWCC 2847 (Admin))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

8. A coroner is an independent judicial office‑holder who investigates deaths that are sudden, violent, unnatural, or of unknown cause. They have the power to order post‑mortems, summon witnesses, and hold inquests to establish who died and how, when, and where the death occurred.
9. The relevant council is responsible for appointing the coroner for the area, and in some cases, funding the coroner’s accommodation and staff. However, the coroner is not a council employee.
10. Guidance issued by the Ministry of Justice says a coroner should ordinarily complete an inquest within six months of the death, though it may take longer in complex cases.
11. Mr B’s partner died in 2023, in circumstances requiring a referral to the coroner. In 2025, Mr B complained to the Council the coroner had not yet completed an inquest into her death, and that he and his partner’s family had received very little contact and information from the coroner. He also complained the coroner had lost some of his late partner’s property.
12. In response, the Council acknowledged there were significant problems with the coroner’s service, and explained what steps were being taken to improve it.
13. Mr B then referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

14. Although the Council is responsible for appointing and providing some funding to the coroner’s service, it is not responsible for the coroner’s decisions, actions or performance. As our jurisdiction only extends to the Council itself, we have no power to investigate complaints concerning such matters, which are instead for the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office or the courts, as appropriate.
15. Mr B considers the Council is at fault for permitting a deterioration in the coroner’s service. However, Mr B’s complaint is, at its core, one about the coroner’s performance and conduct. The law says we may not investigate a complaint about the Council’s actions, where those actions concern a substantive matter that does not fall into our jurisdiction. This restriction applies to Mr B’s complaint, and we therefore do not have the authority to investigate it.
16. Even without this restriction, there would be too many variable factors to allow us to draw a direct link between the narrow element which falls into our jurisdiction – the funding arrangements – and the overall performance of the coroner, which is the injustice Mr B claims.
17. And, further to this, a decision about the appropriate level of funding for a service is generally a political, rather than administrative, matter. It is therefore unlikely we would be able to find fault by the Council for this reason, regardless of the information we reviewed as part of an investigation.
18. This is not, in any way, to dismiss or minimise Mr B’s distress at the delay in carrying out the inquest for his late partner, and it is entirely understandable that he has chosen to pursue a complaint about this. Unfortunately, for the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman does not have the power to conduct a meaningful investigation in this situation.

Back to top

Decision

19. I have discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman