• The complaint
• The Ombudsman’s role and powers
• How I considered this complaint
• What I found
• Final decision

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Ms X complained a Council crematorium discarded her mother’s medical metal and gave her metal from other cremations instead. She also complained about the crematorium staff customer service. The Ombudsman will not consider this complaint further as it is unlikely investigation could achieve any more for Ms X or provide the outcome she seeks.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained a Council crematorium failed to return her mother’s medical metal to her and gave her miscellaneous metal from other cremations instead. She also complained the crematorium staff provided her and her family with poor customer service. She says this caused significant distress and made her concerned about whether the ashes she received were her mother’s.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have considered all the information Ms X provided. I have also considered the Council’s response. I have written to Ms X with my draft decision and given her the opportunity to comment.

Back to top

What I found

What Happened

4. Ms X’s mother was cremated in June 2019. Through a funeral director, Ms X had requested the crematorium return her mother’s ashes and medical metal. Shortly following the cremation, a member of staff from the funeral directors visited the crematorium and collected Ms X’s mother’s ashes. The crematorium informed the member of staff no metal was available.
5. The crematorium later gave some metal work to the funeral directors. A member of Ms X’s family collected the ashes and metal in August 2019 and identified the metal had not belonged to Ms X’s mother and was not medical.
6. Ms X contacted the crematorium with her concerns and after a delay of five days was told she had raised them too late. In later communication, the crematorium confirmed it had missed Ms X’s request to keep the medical metal. A non-management member of staff gave the funeral director miscellaneous non-medical metal to avoid admitting the mistake and causing Ms X and her family distress.
7. The crematorium apologised for the error and failing to admit to it. It offered Ms X and her family the opportunity to view a cremation to reassure them the ashes they had received were Ms X’s mother’s. It also offered to search through ‘scrap’ metal to see if it could find Ms X’s mother’s medical metal. Ms X says these offers were insensitive and further indications of the crematorium’s poor customer service.
8. Ms X complained to the Council in August and October 2019. The Council’s response accepted the crematorium processes to return medical metal were poor and its actions to supply anonymous metals to Ms X were misguided. The Council also found the crematorium staff could have handled the matter more sensitively. It tried to reassure Ms X that the process for cremation was robust and it was confident the ashes returned to Ms X were her mother’s.
9. To remedy the injustice Ms X experienced, the Council apologised and offered recommendations including enhanced customer service and complaints training, a change in the medical metal returns process and disciplinary action where appropriate. It offered Ms X a refund of the £700 cremation fees and a £500 payment in recognition of the distress she experienced.

Analysis

10. The Council’s investigation into Ms X’s complaint was robust. It is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman would add further to it or provide Ms X with the reassurance she seeks.
11. Ms X is dissatisfied with the recommendations the Council offered. She seeks the dismissal of the members of staff responsible for giving her the miscellaneous metal. She also wants a public apology and compensation. The Ombudsman cannot recommend a Council takes disciplinary action, nor is it likely we would recommend an apology in a different format. Whether Ms X is entitled to compensation is a matter for the courts, who can make a judgement on negligence. The Ombudsman is satisfied the Council’s offer is sufficient to remedy Ms X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely investigation could achieve any more for Ms X or provide the outcome she seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page