The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse an application for the installation of a memorial. This is because there is no indication of significant fault on the Council’s part.
The complaint
The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council is at fault in refusing permission for the installation of a memorial at a cemetery.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr X applied on behalf of a third party to install a memorial at a cemetery managed by the Council. The Council refused permission for the installation. Mr X disputes the grounds on which it did so. He says the Council has erroneously stated that the method proposed for fixing the memorial does not comply with the relevant British Standard. He asserts that it meets British Standard 8415/2018 and is therefore an appropriate memorial foundation fixing system, and the Council’s decision is therefore flawed.
The evidence shows that the Council did state that the proposed system did not meet the relevant British Standard. It did not however repeat this assertion in its final response to Mr X’s complaint. Rather, it said that the proposed fixing system is not recognised by the National Association of Memorial Masons (NAMM). It says it does not have the resources to check memorial fixings which are not accredited by NAMM and that Mr X should therefore seek such accreditation if he wishes to submit applications using the proposed system. It is reasonable to regard the arguments set out in the Council’s final response as its definitive position.
Whether the proposed memorial fixing system is appropriate is not a matter for the Ombudsman. Neither is whether NAMM accreditation is the most appropriate standard to inform decisions on application. The question for us is whether there is evidence of significant fault on the Council’s part. There is no such evidence.
The Council has the right to determine its own method for determining applications and there is nothing to suggest that using NAMM accreditation is unreasonable. Whether other options are available to the Council is not relevant. The Council’s position is properly set out and is defensible. That being the case, it is not for the Ombudsman to criticise the decision it has made on this individual application, or to intervene to substitute an alternative view.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of significant fault on the Council’s part.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman