Summary: There was no fault by the Council in its handling of arrangements for a public health funeral. We have therefore completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Ms W.
2. Ms W’s sister, to whom I will refer as Ms D, died in 2020, and the Council arranged and paid for a public health funeral for her. Ms W complains:

• the Council failed to inform the funeral director Ms D had next of kin before her cremation; and
• the Council wrongly told Ms W that family members were not permitted to attend the cremation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I reviewed Ms W’s correspondence with the Council, the Council’s internal notes, and its emails with the funeral director.
6. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. In May 2020, Ms D passed away. The Council agreed to provide her with a public health funeral because of her circumstances and those of her family. Ms D was to be cremated at a crematorium owned and managed by a neighbouring local authority.
8. A Council officer (Officer G) met Ms W to discuss the arrangements for Ms D’s cremation, and to ask her to sign a consent form. During this conversation, the officer told Ms W that family members would be able to attend the cremation if they wished.
9. Shortly after this, however, Officer G emailed Ms W to notify her he had been wrong about this, as the other local authority’s rules has recently changed, and family members were no longer allowed to attend the type of service arranged for Ms D. He apologised for his mistake.
10. On 23 June, the funeral director emailed the officer to say Ms D’s cremation would take place the following day. A different Council officer attended the service on 24 June. On 29 and 30 June, Ms W exchanged emails with Officer G to make arrangements to collect Ms D’s ashes.
11. On 23 October, Ms W made a formal complaint to the Council. She complained:

• Officer G had originally said she could attend Ms D’s cremation;
• Officer G had asked her to sign a consent form for a ‘short notice service’ but did not give her a copy of the form;
• Officer G had corresponded with her by email rather than phone;
• she had not been told in advance of the date and time of Ms D’s cremation;
• the undertaker had told her Ms D had no next of kin when she collected the ashes;
• she had not received a copy of Ms D’s death certificate.

12. The Council replied at stage 1 of its complaints procedure on 3 November. It accepted Officer G had wrongly told Ms W she would be able to attend the cremation, but explained the rules were set by the other local authority. The Council pointed out Officer G had already apologised for this mistake.
13. The Council said the form Ms W had signed was simply to consent to the Council arranging Ms D’s cremation, and not for a ‘short notice service’. It apologised it had not given Ms W a copy of the form however, and said it would amend its procedures to avoid a recurrence. The Council also said it normally sought to update next of kin by phone, but this was not always possible, and Officer G had relied on email in order to pass on information quickly.
14. The Council apologised Ms W had not been told in advance of the date and time of the cremation. However, it said it had only been notified itself late on the day before, and was told the next of kin had been informed. The Council said it could not explain why the undertaker had believed there was no next of kin, as it had referred to next of kin on the form it sent to the funeral director on 3 June.
15. The Council also explained the Coroner’s Office had not yet issued Ms D’s death certificate, but said Ms W would be able to apply for a copy in due course.
16. Ms W made a stage 2 complaint on 10 November. She asked why neither Officer G nor the funeral director had informed her of the date and time of the cremation in advance. She also complained about the Council’s comment that Officer G had used email to pass on information quickly, when she had only been told about Ms D's cremation several days after it had happened.
17. The Council replied on 30 November. It said it had received a call from the funeral director at 4.20pm on “23 October” (this appears to be an error and should read “23 June”) giving the date and time of the cremation. The funeral director had also said they would contact the next of kin as well. The Council apologised if this did not happen.
18. The Council said, when it first instructed the funeral director, it had given them details of Ms D’s next of kin. Unfortunately, as this conversation was by phone, there was no documentary record of it. The Council said it would ensure it sent a confirmatory email as well in future.
19. The Council accepted it had been insensitive to pass on the information about Ms D’s cremation to Ms W via email, and again said it would change its procedure to ensure this did not happen again. The Council partially upheld Ms W’s complaint for this reason, but did not accept it was at fault Ms W had not been notified of the cremation in advance.
20. Ms W referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 18 May 2021.

Back to top

Legislative background

21. Public health funerals are arranged, and in some cases, paid for by local authorities. A local authority should fund a public health funeral, where a person dies with insufficient means to pay for their own funeral, and there are no known relatives with the means or willingness to pay.
22. A public health funeral (archaically known as a ‘pauper’s funeral’) is a low-cost, no-frills ceremony, with the deceased often buried in a communal grave without a marker.

Back to top

Analysis

23. Ms W complains she was not notified in advance of the date and time of Ms D’s cremation, meaning she and other family members were unable to mark the occasion. She also complains that, when she went to collect Ms D’s ashes after the cremation, the funeral director informed her that family members could have attended the service after all.
24. I note, in its stage 1 response, the Council said it had informed the funeral director of the existence of next of kin in the initial form it sent to them on 3 June, by noting the next of kin would collect Ms D’s ashes after the cremation. But I have seen a copy of this form, and there is no reference to next of kin on it – section which explains the collection arrangements simply reads “TBC” (‘to be confirmed’). It was therefore incorrect for the Council to have said this.
25. Despite this, I consider the evidence shows the Council did inform the funeral director, before the cremation, that Ms D had next of kin.
26. First, I have seen an email from Officer G to the funeral director dated 10 June. The Council has explained that the other local authority’s change in rules meant that mourners could not attend the type of (basic) service it had arranged. After Officer G found out about the change, he contacted the funeral director to ask the cost of the most basic ceremony they offered, where “friends are able to attend”.
27. The Council has, separately, explained it did not accept the funeral director’s quote for the more expensive service, because it was against its policy to do so. Either way, I consider Officer G’s email should have alerted the funeral director to the fact there were people who wished to attend the service.
28. Second, I have seen another email from Officer G to the funeral director dated 15 June, in which he explained he had just been speaking to Ms D’s brother about the arrangements to collect her ashes. Again, this clearly shows the Council had informed the funeral director of the existence of next of kin before Ms D’s cremation.
29. Third, I have reviewed the Council’s case notes. There is an entry dated 23 June, at 4.22pm, which says (emphasis my own):

“[Funeral director] called to advise funeral had been scheduled for tomorrow, 8.45am, [location of crematorium], NOK informed. Advised I would arrange attendance by an officer.”

30. ‘NOK’ is a common abbreviation for ‘next of kin’, and so this note clearly supports the Council’s account, that the funeral director told it they had informed Ms D’s family of the arrangements.
31. Taking this all together, I am satisfied there is no evidence of fault by the Council here. While I accept Ms W was not notified in advance of the date and time of the cremation, it appears this was because of an error by the funeral director, not the Council.
32. With regard to the second strand of Ms W’s complaint, I cannot confirm objectively what the funeral director told her when she went to collect Ms D’s ashes. But I accept they may have told her that mourners were permitted to attend services.
33. However, it is the neighbouring local authority’s policy which prevents mourners from attending the type of basic ceremony arranged for Ms D. It is not a rule or policy made by the funeral director, and so, even if the funeral director did tell Ms W she could have attended the service, I am satisfied this would not have been accurate.
34. I therefore find no fault by the Council here either.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I have completed my investigation with a finding of no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman