Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s application of different burial fees for residents and non‑residents. Mr X disagreement with the Council’s rationale is not evidence of fault that justifies our involvement. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s handling of his Freedom of Information Act requests.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council charges higher burial fees to non‑residents than to residents for the same burial services. He says he understands the Council’s power to set burial fees but says the Council has not evidenced proper record keeping, governance or equality considerations when introducing and maintaining the residency‑based differential charge. He says this has caused him frustration and is unfair to bereaved families.

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 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
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
4. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. While we can consider whether a council has followed proper decision‑making processes, we cannot require a council to change its burial fees, apply uniform charges, or substitute our view for that of the Council on matters of local charging policy.
8. The Council has explained its rationale for charging non‑residents a higher rate, including supporting residents and managing burial capacity. Mr X’s disagreement with the Council’s explanation is not evidence of fault.
9. Mr X is not the recipient of the burial service and is not personally liable for the charges. The claimed injustice is therefore limited to frustration and time and trouble. This is not sufficient to justify an investigation where no effective remedy for significant personal injustice is available.
10. Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s record‑keeping practices or the handling of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests are matters for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The Ombudsman is not the regulator for information rights compliance.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to justify our involvement. Furthermore, the ICO is better suited to consider the Council’s handling of Freedom of Information Act requests.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman