Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions before and on the day of his father’s funeral, which resulted in the burial plot being changed on the morning of the service. We find the Council at fault because it departed from its own policy and failed to maintain accurate records about the condition of graves. This caused Mr X and his family avoidable distress. The Council has apologised and agreed to review procedures and retrain staff, which we consider a suitable remedy, so make no further recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s actions before and on the day of his father’s funeral, which led to the burial plot being changed on the morning of the service.
2. He says Council’s actions demonstrate systemic failings, that poor communication caused significant distress to him and his family, and that the plot ultimately allocated may be at risk of damage.

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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X 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

The Council’s Bereavement Policy

7. Under the Council’s bereavement policy, the allocation of graves is subject to the approval of the Cemeteries and Crematorium Service and must accord with the overall cemetery plan. Members of the public and funeral directors cannot select specific grave plots. Requests to be buried near existing family graves may be considered but are not guaranteed. Details of the allocated grave are only provided once a plot has been formally assigned, and funeral directors are responsible for liaising with families about this information. The service reserves the right to change an allocated grave at short notice without prior notification.

What happened

8. In April 2025, following his father’s death, Mr X asked the Council whether his father could be buried near other family members at a particular cemetery.
9. In early May, the Council told him there was no space available in his preferred area for the required plot size, but there was availability in another area. Mr X provided details of several preferred plots.
10. The next day, the Council said it had checked availability with ground staff and confirmed that only two plots were available, as others were either occupied or pre-purchased. It explained space was very limited and it had tried to accommodate the family’s request but wasn’t able to.
11. The same day, the family visited the cemetery and selected one of the two available plots (Plot 1).
12. On the morning of the funeral, the Council informed the family that Plot 1 could not be used because it had collapsed that morning during digging. The Council said it therefore had to allocate the only other available plot (Plot 2).
13. Two days later, Mr X complained. He said the information about availability had changed several times. He also said that, during the funeral, a groundsman indicated Plot 1 had collapsed months earlier, not that morning. Mr X asked the Council to clarify what had happened and raised concerns about possible future damage to his father’s grave due to its location.
14. In response, the Council explained the cemetery was almost full and it had removed the option for families to choose plots, partly due to situations such as this. It accepted it should have made this clearer but had tried to assist the family by identifying a grave in their preferred area. It said it was told on the morning of the funeral that the grave was unusable and had assumed the collapse had occurred that day. It apologised for the misunderstanding and acknowledged the distress caused. It explained grave allocation is managed in the office using digital records and historical ledgers, and if a collapsed grave is not recorded, office staff would not be aware of it.
15. Dissatisfied with the response, Mr X escalated his complaint.
16. After a further visit to the cemetery, Mr X reported that a neighbouring grave had been dug, causing tyre marks on his father’s grave, items requiring tidying, and his father’s plaque had been removed.
17. In its final complaint response, the Council maintained there was no fault in relocating the grave but accepted there had been fault in its communication. It said it should have clearly explained that grave allocation rests with the service. It agreed to raise the matter internally and review policies and procedures. It also accepted fault in failing to record the previous collapse of Plot 1 and said staff would be retrained. Regarding potential vehicle damage, it said this would be a matter for insurance if it occurred, but it would consider steps to reduce risk. It explained the cemetery is active and temporary disruption is unavoidable during burial works.
18. Mr X later confirmed that his father’s plaque had been returned.

My findings

19. The Council’s records show it acted sensitively and attempted to support the family during a difficult time. In seeking to accommodate Mr X’s preference for a grave near relatives, it departed from its own policy, which does not permit families to select specific plots.
20. While the policy allows the Council to change an allocated grave at short notice, the distressing circumstances that arose on the morning of the funeral could likely have been avoided in one of two ways:
• If the Council had applied its policy consistently from the outset and not facilitated plot selection; or
• If accurate and up-to-date information about the condition of graves, including the prior collapse of Plot 1, had been properly recorded and communicated to office staff.
21. The failure to ensure the grave’s condition was recorded in line with procedures, and the resulting last-minute change, amount to fault. This fault caused avoidable distress to Mr X and his family on the day of the funeral.
22. The Council has acknowledged shortcomings in communication and record-keeping, apologised, and committed to staff retraining and reviewing procedures. Given the circumstances, these actions appropriately remedy the injustice caused.
23. In relation to Mr X’s concerns about potential future damage to the grave from vehicles, this relates to a possible future event rather than an injustice that has already occurred. It therefore falls outside the Ombudsman’s role, which is to consider alleged maladministration and injustice that has taken place. However, I welcome the Council’s consideration of steps to reduce the risk of damage.

Back to top

Decision

24. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has already taken action which remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman