Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about graveyard maintenance issues. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by this office could add significantly to the responses already provided by the Council via its own previous investigation of the matter. Also, we cannot make a ruling on whether the Council is liable for the damage to items at the grave.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains about a fall in the standard of graveyard maintenance in the graveyard where her family member is buried. Ms X says workers’ discarded cigarettes have burned items on the grave; items around the grave have been damaged when workers cut the grass and she sometimes has to cut the grass around the grave herself. Ms X says the issue is causing her a great deal of worry and distress.

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 do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council investigated the concerns Ms X raised, as set out above. As part of its investigation it questioned the staff who carry out the maintenance work at the graveyard and inspected the grave.
7. The Council explained the maintenance staff confirmed they do not smoke and the cigarette ends were not left by staff. It noted the graveyard is open to the public and so it is possible the cigarette ends were left by members of the public. It also confirmed the staff do not move items on the grave whilst cutting the grass and it found no evidence to support Ms X’s view that staff had damaged the items. In relation to the general standards of maintenance, the Council said this was being carried out in line with its standard schedules for grass cutting and emptying of bins.
8. Whilst I acknowledge Ms X’s dissatisfaction with the Council’s response this is not a complaint we will investigate. This is because it is unlikely an investigation by this office could add in any significant or helpful way to the responses already provided by the Council via its own investigation of the matter. It has already considered the available information in responding to the issues raised and there is nothing further we could add were we to also investigate.
9. Further to this, we cannot decide whether the Council is liable for the damage caused to items on the grave nor can we award compensation in the way Ms X seeks. Deciding whether an organisation has been negligent usually involves looking rigorously, and in a structured way, at evidence as only the court can to make its findings. Only a court can decide if an organisation has been negligent and so should pay damages. We cannot recommend payments that ‘punish’ a body in our jurisdiction. If Ms X seeks compensation and a decision on liability for her losses then it is reasonable to expect her to make a claim to the Council’s insurers and if this is refused to pursue a remedy in the courts.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because an investigation by this office could not add to the responses already provided via the Council’s investigation of the matter and because Ms X can make a claim in relation to the damaged items.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman