The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about decisions a coroner’s officer made during inquest proceedings because those decisions are outside our jurisdiction. And while we could investigate how the Council considered Miss X’s complaint about these matters, we should not investigate this, because there is no worthwhile outcome we could achieve for Miss X in doing so.
The complaint
Miss X complained about the decisions made in 2022 during a coronial process and these included: A failure to recognise she was an interested party; a failure to recognise the correct legislation relating to identifying next of kin; a lack of sensitivity on when it communicated with her, and; an officer was biased.
Miss X said this caused her trauma and depression and has added to family disputes.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We cannot investigate complaints about actions which are not the administrative function of a council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(1) as amended) 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)) 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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Miss X and considered the information she provided.
I considered the Council’s comments and the documents it provided.
Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
Background
In late 2022, Miss X sent a message to the coroner’s officer who was supporting an inquest into the recent death of a person in the Council’s area. Because the officer did not respond, Miss X then made a complaint about this and the subsequent actions of that officer, in line with the complaint summary I have highlighted.
Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
A coroner’s duties and functions under the 2009 Act remain the coroner’s despite being appointed and paid by the council and coroner’s officers being provided by the council. When undertaking tasks on behalf of a coroner as part of the coroner’s statutory functions relating to coronial investigations, coroner’s officers are exercising the coroner’s functions, not those of the council. Because of this, I cannot investigate the actions of the coroner’s officer.
From the information I have seen, the Council responded to Miss X’s complaints through its corporate complaint procedure and appear to have responded in line with the areas of Miss X’s complaint.
My view of those questions Miss X has remaining, these relate to the decisions and actions linked to the coronial process and the decisions taken as a consequence.
Because we cannot investigate these matters, which are not within our jurisdiction, we should not look at those matters which are remaining and deal only with how the Council considered Miss X’s complaint, because there is no worthwhile outcome that we can achieve in looking at that alone.
Final decision
I am ending my investigation because part of Miss X’s complaint is not within our jurisdiction and there is no worthwhile outcome that I can achieve by investigating the parts which are in our jurisdiction.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman