Summary: Miss C complained about the arrangements made for the burial of her mother at a Council run cemetery. We do not find fault with the location of the grave. However, there was fault by contractors on the day of the service and the Council was unclear about charges for a proposed disinterment. This has caused distress for Miss C. The Council has accepted these findings and at the end of this statement we set out action it has agreed to take to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. ‘Mr B’ complains on behalf of ‘Miss C’. Their complaint concerns the arrangements made for the burial of Miss C’s mother. In summary, they complain:

• the burial was not in the expected location within the cemetery;
• about unprofessional behaviour by a Council officer and contractors, which marred events on the day of the burial service;
• contractors left the grave in an unacceptably poor condition after the service;
• the Council has invoiced excessive fees for disinterment of the grave to allow re-burial elsewhere.

2. These events have caused Miss C much distress. She cannot visit the grave in its current location for personal reasons. She has permission to carry out a disinterment and agreement to bury her mother elsewhere, but presently cannot afford the fees for this.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

7. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:

• Mr B’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and supporting information he provided;
• correspondence exchanged between Mr B and the Council about the matters covered by the complaint; pre-dating our investigation;
• information provided by the Council in response to written enquiries;
• information provided in a telephone call with the Funeral Director who arranged the burial service.

8. I also gave Mr B and the Council opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision statement. I took account of any comments they made before finalising the statement.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

9. Miss C wanted her mother buried in a cemetery run by the Council. The cemetery is on land that runs north to south, with the entrance to the north of the site. The site slopes downhill to the south.
10. The southern end of the site has more graves, with some areas in the north of the site only used in more recent years for burials. Miss C instructed a Funeral Director and they told her the grave would be in a northern part of the site. They told me they gave this advice following a conversation they had with the Council Cemetery Officer after an earlier burial. They understood from that conversation the southern end of the site was full. Having a plot in the northern part of the site conformed to Miss C’s wishes. The Council Cemetries Officer acknowledges this conversation took place, but implies the Funeral Director misunderstood. They report saying the Council had only a limited number of plots available in southern end of the site which could only be used for burial at certain times of the year, further limiting their availability.
11. The Funeral Director completed a ‘notice of internment’ on behalf of Miss C. They circled on the form Miss C wanted a plot on ‘the lawn’. Underneath they wrote the words ‘new plot’ and on another part of the form they wrote Miss C wanted a “new lawn section plot”. The Council publishes a map of the cemetery and this marks ‘the lawn’ as being to the south of the site. There is no designation of a ‘new lawn’ on the map.
12. In a covering email the Funeral Director referred to this form saying they had the form “for a new single grave (lawn section)”. In reply, the Cemetery Officer said there was a grave available “down at the bottom in the consecrated lawn section”. The Funeral Director then asked the Council to send an invoice for the “last new lawn grave”.
13. The Council charges £2200 for burials. Around £1100 of this is for lease of the grave plot. But in error, the Council sent the Funeral Director an invoice for only £2000.
14. There was no further discussion of the grave location. I asked the Council if it sent anything to confirm the location such as a cemetery plan or map showing this. It said it did not do this routinely, although it would do so if the Funeral Director was unfamiliar with the site. It further advises that as a result of this case it has now introduced the practice of providing a location map with every grave plot that it sells.
15. The Council says that on the day of the service the Funeral Director knew where to go, making for the grave location. However, the Funeral Director told me this was not the case. They said they had only been to the cemetery around four times previously. They also said they did not know the grave location and asked the Cemetery Officer to meet them at the entrance and direct them to the grave, which they went on to do. The Cemetery Officer says they met the Funeral Director in the grounds. Mr B believes the celebrant conducting the burial may have met the cortege at the entrance to the cemetery.
16. On the day of the burial a mini digger used by contractors to dig the grave was clearly visible to mourners. Before the service ended contractors also arrived on-site to fill the grave and sat in a vehicle, in the path of mourners when they left. During the service there was also a conversation between the Council Cemetery Officer and Funeral Director about payment for the burial, overheard by mourners. The Officer and the Funeral Director disagree about who started this conversation. Mr B told me one of Miss C’s relatives would confirm it was the Council officer.
17. After the service, the contractor back filled the grave. When Mr B and Miss C returned to the grave later that day, they found soil piled high on top and spilling on to neighbouring plots. Flower tributes had also fallen off the grave on to neighbouring plots.
18. Since the service Miss C has been unable to visit the grave, for personal reasons associated with its location. She also remains upset by the events on the day.
19. Mr B made a complaint on behalf of Miss C. In response, the Council accepted it was at fault for some of the events on the day, saying its contractors fell “below the standard accepted”. In particular, it accepts the mini digger should not have been visible to mourners and that they filled the grave with more soil than needed. The Council also accepted the conversation about payment should have been more discreet, while denying its officer began this.
20. After Mr B made the complaint the Council sent an email to its contractors to let them know about the complaint and remind them of the standards expected. The contractor accepted it was at fault here also.
21. However, in reply to Mr B’s complaint, the Council defended its actions around the location of the grave. It said it had made clear to the Funeral Director the plot was in the lower part of the cemetery.
22. Because of the events on the day it offered as a ‘goodwill gesture’ to waive £200 from the cost of the burial. This was the amount it had failed to invoice for initially as noted at paragraph 13.
23. Since making her complaint, Miss C has sought, and gained permission from the local Church of England Diocese, for a disinterment of the grave. She also has permission to rebury her mother in a different location.
24. The Council has invoiced £4350 for the disinterment. This includes:

• £2200 in fees; in its published list of charges the Council says it charges double what it charges for a burial, which in this case was £1100;
• £1300 plus VAT for the cost of the contractors to open and backfill the grave;
• Around £425 for temporarily removing and refitting a neighbouring headstone;
• £85 for the presence of an Environmental Health officer required by law when a disinterment takes place.

25. The Council says following the disinterment it can buy back the lease of the grave from Miss C, for £1100.
26. In comments on these charges, following issue of our draft decision statement, the Council asked us to note advice published by the Institute of Cemetries and Crematorium Management (ICCM) on disinterment. This recommends that when a disinterment takes place the plot must be dug wider than the initial grave to allow for the lift of the coffin. There are also other costs associated such as extra soil being imported on to site for the backfill.
27. With regard to the neighbouring headstone the Council says because it must dig the grave wider, it must move this. In turn this is only work that a qualified stonemason can carry out and the fee is their charge. As part of his comments on the draft decision, Mr B sent me photographs which may show the neighbouring headstone is already being undermined as there is a cavity in the soil beneath it. He questions therefore if it may need to be removed and replaced in any event.
28. The Council has said it is open to Miss C’s Funeral Directors carrying out the disinterment and they have completed a risk assessment accordingly. It has no objection to the Funeral Directors carrying out the exhumation, although it implies this would not cover all the work needed on the day. The Council has also said it is open to having further discussions with them subject to receiving satisfactory risk assessments.

My findings

The complaint about the grave location

29. I have considered each part of Miss C’s complaint in turn. I had some concerns about the Council’s procedure for assigning grave plots. In particular that it was not providing a cemetery map or plan to show the location. I welcome that it has now changed its practice here. But at the time of the events covered by this complaint, there was nothing in the Council’s own regulations covering the site which said it must do this. And I found no national guidance, such as that produced by the ICCM recommending this practice. So, I could not say the Council’s procedure justified a finding of fault.
30. In addition, I consider the weight of evidence supports the view the Council gave Miss C’s Funeral Director information about the location of the plot within the cemetery. The cemetery map shows only one part of the site marked as a ‘lawn area’, to the south of the site. Further, the Cemetery Officer put in an email that the plot was at “the bottom of the site”. Given the site entrance and slope of the land, I consider there could be no confusion about which end of the site they were referring to.
31. I recognise the Funeral Director tried to distinguish their request by asking specifically for a ‘new lawn plot’. But this phrase was open to misinterpretation. Because there is nowhere on the site known as the ‘new lawn’. So, the request could read as one wanting a new plot on ‘the lawn’ (distinct to when a family wants to use an existing plot).
32. I consider the Funeral Director put too much store on their earlier conversation with the Cemetery Officer which led them to believe there were no more vacant plots at the southern end of the site. I have no reason to doubt this belief, although I note the differing account of the conversation provided by the Council. Nor that they had a limited understanding of the site layout and they did not know the plot location before the day. But this combination of assumption and misunderstanding does not make for a finding of fault against the Council.
33. I also accept that had Miss C understood the true location of the plot she would have sought to change it before the day of the burial. She would not therefore now face the fees associated with disinterment. But because I cannot say the Council is at fault for how this unfortunate situation has arisen, I cannot recommend a waiver of those fees. Although I do comment further on them below when addressing her particular concerns on this point.

The complaint about events on the day of the service

34. There is clearly evidence of fault in the actions of the Council and its contractor on the day of the burial. It does not dispute the contractor’s actions were unprofessional and fell below acceptable standards. They should not have left the mini digger in sight of mourners, been present so close to the service nor left the grave in such poor condition afterwards.
35. I cannot take a view on who started the conversation between the Council officer and Funeral Director about payment of fees on the day of the service because their accounts differ. But as the Council further acknowledges, this was indiscreet.
36. All of these matters caused Miss C distress. I note the Council recognised this to some extent by waiving £200 from the initial burial fees. However, I do not consider this a proportionate response, taking account it had failed to invoice these initially. I consider given the inherent emotion associated with funerals and burials, and the wish to focus on mourning, it is especially distressing when fault occurs on the day to detract from that. I consider a distress payment of £500, at the higher end of what we would usually recommend for distress, to be more appropriate.

The complaint about disinterment fees

37. I found there was some lack of transparency from the Council about the fees charged for this before we issued our draft findings. It was upfront about its own fees and I noted these would be effectively halved if the plot lease was sold back to the Council afterwards. I also accept, for public health reasons an Environmental Health Officer must be present for the disinterment.
38. So, my concern focused on the costs of the contractor and for removal of the neighbouring headstone. It was initially unclear to me why the cost of re-opening and backfilling a grave should cost (with VAT) around £450 more than the work involved in opening and backfilling a grave for an interment. However, I consider the Council has now clarified why this is the case (see paragraph 26).
39. I was also unclear about the need for removal and refitting of a neighbouring headstone, if not needed to dig the grave initially. But the Council has also now provided more explanation for this (see paragraph 27). However, I do also take account that Mr B’s photographs may suggest the headstone is becoming undermined.
40. I welcome also the Council has provided some more clarity on its position towards Miss C instructing her Funeral Director to undertake the disinterment. She is reluctant to let the Council or its contractors carry out the disinterment given events on the day of the burial and the mistakes made. It seems the Council is agreeable to the Funeral Director undertaking at least some of the work involved, although there is no final agreement on the scope of this.
41. Taking all the above into account, I do not consider I can find the Council is at fault for charging those fees in addition to its own, nor for its current position on the extent to which Miss C’s Funeral Director may carry out the disinterment. However, the earlier lack of explanation for these charges and decisions results in a further finding of fault.
42. This has caused Miss C further distress as uncertainty. While that uncertainty over the charges is now less, it has not been fully resolved. So, I welcome that the Council has agreed to further action to address these matters, set out below.

Back to top

Agreed action

43. Within 20 working days of a decision on this complaint, the Councill has agreed to remedy Miss C’s injustice as follows:
1. it will provide a further apology to her, accepting the findings of this investigation and taking account of the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies (section 3.2) which sets out our expectations of what an effective and meaningful apology entails;
2. its most senior Cemetery Officer will reconsider the scope of work currently proposed associated with the process of disinterment and headstone removal / refitting (taking account of Mr B’s photographs of the neighbouring headstone). That reconsideration should encompass further discussions with Miss C’s Funeral Director to clarify the proposed scope of work they may undertake during the disinterment. If the Council maintains that it, or its contractors, must have control over some or all the work involved then it will set out its reasons in writing (this is to remedy the injustice set out in paragraph 41);
3. it will also amend any invoice for the disinterment (whether at present cost or if revised as a result of b) above) to deduct a further £300, in recognition of the distress caused by its actions. This is in addition to the £200 waived from the initial burial cost (this is to remedy the injustice identified in paragraph 36).
44. The Council will be expected to provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
45. Finally, in the event that Miss C remains dissatisfied once the actions at 43b) and c) have completed, then she may contact us setting out that dissatisfaction. We will consider whether the Council has satisfactorily completed the agreed actions and reserve the right to initiate a further investigation if we are unable to come to that view. In these circumstances we would not expect Miss C to have to complete the Council complaint procedure again.

Back to top

Final decision

46. For reasons set out above I uphold this complaint finding fault by the Council causing injustice to Miss C. The Council has agreed action that I consider will remedy that injustice. Consequently, I have completed my investigation satisfied with its response.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman