The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about cemetery fees because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
Mr X complains about the charges for his late father’s burial. He says his father was not told about the Council’s decision taken nine years ago to charge non- residents an increase in interment fees which is twice that paid by residents of the borough.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended) We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered: information provided by Mr X including the Council’s response to his complaint cemetery rules and regulations published on the Council’s website; and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council sets the cemeteries fees and charges to cover the cost of providing the service. Fees for non-residents (of the borough) are twice the cost of resident fees.
There are fees for buying the grave space and for the interment which are separate.
In 2009 Mr X’s late father, Mr Y, bought a grave space for himself and his wife.
In 2013, the Council decided to charge increased interment fees for those people not resident of the borough. This applied to all non-resident, including those who may have already bought burial plots.
Sadly, in 2023 Mr Y died. Mr X says Mr Y had budgeted for his funeral and, as he was unaware of the increased cost, his budget fell short of what was needed. Mr X says this caused added stress at an emotional time for the family.
In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council explained the non-resident fee is correct because Mr Y did not live in the Council’s area. It said it was not feasible to contact all owners of burial plots when the change was made in 2013 because plot owners move home, and the addresses provided at the time of purchase are not necessarily correct. Also, the Council’s published Cemetery Rules and Regulations states: “The fees and charges in respect of cemeteries are reviewed on a regular basis, usually annually. Funeral Directors and Memorial Masons will be advised accordingly of any changes in advance. A list of fees is available on request. The Council reserves the right to revise these fees and charges.”
Also, the Council’s website states: “Charges for Non-Residents are double those of residents (except in cases of Council Taxpayers who have become Non-Residents due to ill health or infirmity). This is only applicable to those who have been non-residents within 5 years. This charge applies to the fees for the purchase of the grave space and the interment. Proof will be required for this to apply.”
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to set or change Council policies. The role of the Ombudsman is to check the Council is applying the policies correctly. Also, the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body.
Mr Y lived outside the borough, so the Council’s decision is consistent with its policy.
We would not be able to establish what information Mr Y was given in 2009 about the burial charges. Overall, the onus is on the burial plot owner to check the charges as it is not unreasonable to assume these will increase over time.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman