Summary: Mr B complained that the Council had acted unfairly in respect of the provision of burial plots for his parents following the death of his mother, resulting in significant extra costs on the day of the burial. This caused Mr B significant distress at a very difficult time. We have not found fault with the actions of the Council.

The complaint

1. Mr B complained that Liverpool City Council (the Council), in respect of burial plots for his parents, (following the death of his mother):
• failed to provide the adjacent plots originally purchased;
• gave contradictory information about whether it was possible to have headstones in the woodland area;
• allows people to erect headstones in the woodland area and has taken no action to remove them;
• failed to inform the family of the additional costs of the alternative graves (which should have been based on 2012 costs); and
• failed to acknowledge any fault in the complaint response.
2. This caused Mr B significant distress at a very difficult time.

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 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)
4. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. In 2012 Mr B’s parents purchased two burial plots in the woodland area of a cemetery. The deed said:

“All memorials within lawn grave sections shall be placed at the head of the grave. The remaining area shall be grassed over by the Council. All unauthorised materials for edging the grave are prohibited.”

8. The Grave in Reserve forms signed by his parents in March 2012 states:

“NB: A woodland burial grave…is for one interment only and no memorials or kerb surrounds are allowed. Only a memorial marker post and plaque supplied by [the Council] is allowed on the grave.”

9. Mr B’s mother died on 28 August 2024. The Council received a notice of interment on 1 September 2024 for the burial on 3 September 2024. On 2 September 2024 at 9:45 am the Council issued instructions to dig the grave. The Council also sent the Funeral Director the full list of fees for 2024/25. The grave was checked on the evening of 2 September 2024 and it was discovered that there was insufficient space for a second grave due to the position of other graves.
10. The Council checked the grave on the morning of 3 September 2024 and confirmed there was insufficient space for two plots. It says it contacted the Funeral Director offering like-for-like plots approximately five metres from the original site. A screenshot of calls between the Council and the Funeral Director shows a call was made by the Council at 9:39 am. The Funeral Director (at 9:49 am) confirmed by telephone that the family wished to proceed with this option. At 11:22 am the Funeral Director telephoned the Council to say the family wanted a headstone, but this was not allowed in the woodland area, so they requested two plots in a different area of the cemetery. The Council asked for email confirmation of this, which the Funeral Director sent at 11:36am and also requested details of the additional cost of this option.
11. The Council provided this and asked in a phone call at 12:02 pm for final confirmation that the family were happy to proceed with the new cost. The Funeral Director confirmed by telephone at 12:12 pm that the family wished to proceed and the instruction was sent to the grave diggers more than two hours after the usual deadline for grave digging. The instruction contained details of the additional costs of the new graves. The burial took place around 2.30 pm.
12. Mr B says he received a call from the Funeral Director while he was driving to the funeral informing him that the original plots could not be used but two adjacent ones could be although no headstones would be allowed. Mr B said he knew his parents wanted to be buried side by side and he wanted to erect a headstone, which he thought was allowed. He said the Funeral Director said this would be possible in a different area of the cemetery but did not know if an additional charge would apply. He said no additional charges were specified to him before the burial.
13. The cost of the original plots was £1186 (£593 x 2). The cost of the new plots (which were not available in 2012) was £2,336 (£1168 x 2). The Council refunded the whole of the original purchase price in recognition of the difficult situation. Its normal policy is only to refund 65%. The interment fee for the new section of the cemetery was also £171 higher. So, the additional cost quoted to the Funeral Director in the call at 12:02 pm on 3 September 2024 was £1321.

Formal complaint

14. Mr B complained to the Council about the extra costs on 8 September 2024. He said that the deed for the original grave did not state the restriction on headstones, and he was not aware he could not have one. He said he wanted to erect a headstone at a later date and was offered the alternative plots, but the extra cost was not mentioned until the following day. He said he only agreed to the alternative plots because of the headstone issue. He said the application form signed by his parents contradicted the deed of ownership. He also said the failure to offer the original purchased plots was fault which the Council had not recognised and the woodland area has a number of headstones erected which the Council had not removed. He said any new charge should be at 2012 rates.
15. The Council responded at stage one of its complaints procedure. It went through the sequence of events, saying that the family had been offered two alternatives in the woodland area and had initially chosen the adjacent plots, but had changed their mind when realising that headstones were not allowed. This change had incurred extra charges. The Council said it had checked with the Funeral Director who confirmed the family had requested the change in location and were willing to pay any additional costs.
16. In respect of the wording on the documents it said that the deed document did not say that headstones could be erected. It referred to memorials on the lawned area which was a different section of the cemetery to the woodland area. Only a memorial marker post and plaque supplied by the Council were allowed in the woodland area. This would have been explained to his parents who signed the application form in 2021 with this information on it. It acknowledged that headstones had been placed in the woodland area without permission and the Council would be liaising with the owners to resolve the situation. The Council did not find any fault in its actions and did not uphold the complaint.
17. Mr B remained unhappy and escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. The Council replied in December 2024. It partly upheld the complaint that the Council should have foreseen that the two plots originally purchased were no longer available. The Council said it was difficult to predict tree root growth into the future, especially as the original woodland plans were manually drawn and were not to scale. It had recently introduced 3D digital mapping to enable more accurate allocation of burial plots for the future.
18. The Council did not uphold the complaint about the information on the deeds and application form. It said the deeds referred to the lawned area not the woodland area and his parents were aware in 2021 about the restriction on headstones as they had signed the form containing these details.
19. The Council did not uphold the complaint about headstones in the woodland area. It explained that they had all been erected without permission and the Council writes to owners every 12 months requesting removal but due to the sensitivity of the situation it was unable to enforce removal.
20. It did not uphold the complaint about the charges, saying that an alternative offer had been made which would have incurred no additional costs but because the family had requested new plots where gravestones could be erected the difference in price was payable between the two. Neither did it uphold the complaint about the late notice. It said due to the short time scale of the faith burial, the time available to check the grave and discuss the situation with the family was much reduced. Given the circumstances it considered the officers involved had worked with expediency and empathy to ensure the burial could go ahead as arranged.
21. It made a recommendation to the service to update the website on burials advising that the exact location in the woodland area may not be available due to tree root growth but in such cases an alternative plot in the woodland area would be provided.
22. Mr B complained to us. In response to my enquiries the Council said that the alternative area of the cemetery chosen by the family did not exist in 2012 and 45 of 313 plots in the woodland area had headstones or other unauthorised items.

Analysis

23. I appreciate it must have been very stressful to have been informed on the day of, and while driving to, the burial, that the original plots were no longer available. While this was unfortunate, I have not found fault with the Council for this, given the time elapsed since the purchase of the plots and the difficulty of predicting tree root growth. However, the Council provided two like-for-like options in the woodland area very promptly at no extra cost, which would have resolved the situation.
24. The problem arose when Mr B discovered he could not erect a headstone and said that was what he wanted to do at a later date. His parents had purchased the woodland plots in 2012 aware that no headstones were allowed. I do not agree that the deed and the application form gave contradictory information. The application form clearly said headstones were not allowed and the deed only said headstones were allowed in the lawned area. If his parents had wanted to erect headstones they could have purchased plots which allowed that in 2012. They did not do so. So, when Mr B requested new plots in 2024 where headstones were allowed it was not unreasonable to expect a charge for this, at the current rates. I do not find fault with the Council for making an additional charge.
25. The next question is whether Mr B was aware of the charge before he agreed to the new plots. The sequence of events from the Council along with some telephone records and emails supports the Council’s view that it reasonably believed the family had agreed to the additional costs before the burial. The Funeral Director had asked for details of the costs, then confirmed by telephone and email that the family were aware and had agreed to them. Ideally the Council would have provided this information in writing, but given the short time available (due to circumstances outside its control) I consider on the balance of probabilities it did the best it could to ensure the information was provided and agreed to. I have not found fault here.
26. The Council did acknowledge fault in its complaint response, in partly upholding the complaint about the late notice of the problem with the graves, due to unforeseen and unforeseeable circumstances. It recommended that information be placed on the website to ensure people are better informed about the possibility that graves may no longer be available, but that alternatives will be offered.
27. I accept the fact that a significant number of unauthorised headstones are allowed in the woodland area, could create confusion and inaccurate expectations for others. I also understand the difficulty in enforcing the rules. I do not think this was a relevant consideration in Mr B’s case, as his parents purchased the plots knowing that headstones were not permitted. However, given the perception of people being treated differently I hope the Council will consider further how it can enforce its rules on headstones in the woodland area.

Back to top

Decision

28. I find no fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman