Summary: Ms P complains her father’s funeral service was disrupted by the late arrival of a separate funeral party. Although the Council has accepted there were additional steps crematorium staff could have taken to manage the situation, we do not consider this means the Council can reasonably be found to have been fault on the day. The Council has also offered to refund the full costs of the service, which is the most we would recommend if we did find fault. We have therefore completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Ms P.
2. Ms P complains about disruption caused to her father’s funeral service, at a council-owned crematorium, by the late arrival of another funeral party. She says the situation was poorly managed by crematorium staff, and caused significant distress to her family and her father’s other mourners. Although the Council has offered to reimburse the cremation costs, Ms P says this does not provide an adequate remedy, and wishes the Council to also reimburse her for the cost of the funeral flowers and reception.

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. 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

4. I reviewed the complaints made to the Council and its responses, and sought the Council’s clarification on the improvements it has made.
5. I also shared a draft copy of this decision statement with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. In January 2024 Ms P’s father’s funeral service took place at a crematorium owned and operated by the Council. Another service had been due to take place half an hour earlier, in a separate chapel, but this funeral party had been delayed en route, and so its arrival coincided with the start of Ms P’s father’s service.
7. On 30 January Ms P’s sister, Ms K, submitted a stage 1 complaint to the Council. She said the other funeral party had caused chaos during her father’s service, and asked why the Council had permitted two services to take place simultaneously. Ms K particularly complained that a planned minute’s silence during her father’s service had been disrupted by noise from the other party, and that mourners from that party had then interrupted her father’s mourners as they were leaving to ask for directions.
8. The Council responded to Ms K’s complaint on 21 February. It explained the other party, which included more than 300 mourners, had arrived late, and this was the reason the services ran simultaneously. The Council said it normally sought to stagger services, particularly when one or both involve large parties, but said it unusual for funeral parties to arrive late.
9. The Council said it had identified some learning points as a result of this incident, and that crematorium staff would now ask the relevant funeral director to hold back a late party, if circumstances required it. The Council apologised for the family’s experience and offered to refund the full cost of the cremation service, a total of £901. However, the Council did not respond to a request from Ms K to reimburse the family for the cost of flowers and her father’s wake.
10. On 23 February, the funeral director for Ms P’s father’s service submitted a stage 2 complaint on her behalf. The director said he had never known the crematorium to arrange two simultaneous services, despite the availability of facilities to do so.
11. The director noted the Council’s comment about the size of the other party, and asked if the Council was saying it was more important than Ms P’s father’s service. He also said he had spoken to staff at other crematoria since this incident, and all had said they would refuse or delay entry to a late party under the same circumstances. The director suggested senior staff at the crematorium should have taken similar steps to avoid disruption to Ms P’s father’s service, or alternatively have moved the late party to another, smaller chapel where it would have reduced the impact.
12. The Council responded on 29 February. It denied suggesting the late party was more important due to its size, but explained it had mentioned this because of the logistical difficulty it created. It also acknowledged the crematorium would not book two services to run concurrently, but pointed out that was not what had happened in this case – rather, the two services had run concurrently because one party had arrived late.
13. The Council noted the director’s suggestions. It said it did not consider it reasonable to turn a funeral party away, and that, given the size of the party, attempting to do so would not have reduced the disruption caused to Ms P’s father’s service. The Council also explained it could not have moved the other party to the smaller chapel for health and safety reasons, although it reiterated that it could have done more to hold it back.
14. The Council apologised again for the impact on Ms P’s family, but said it did not agree any further financial remedy was appropriate.
15. Ms P referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 25 April.

Back to top

Analysis

16. I wrote to the Council, to ask it to explain in more detail how it had changed its procedures in the light of this incident. In response, the Council said:

“[Our] revised approach following this complaint is that, when a funeral party is late, the Council should do our utmost to ensure that the needs and requirements of all affected funeral parties are still met insofar as is possible … If holding back a party is practicable and likely to achieve the desired outcome, then crematorium staff, including the office staff where appropriate, can and should exercise their discretion to do so.

“[However] the logistics of holding back a funeral party that is late mean this may not always be a practicable solution. For example, it may be the case that other services are scheduled shortly afterwards, or, particularly in respect of large parties, significant numbers of attendees may have already arrived, parked up and started to congregate. Therefore, holding back a party may not achieve the desired outcome.

“In this particular case, it is my understanding that significant numbers of attendees of the other funeral had arrived at the crematorium, and whilst the crematorium staff made every effort to manage two funeral parties being at the crematorium at the same, the number of attendees made this difficult. Mourners had arrived prior to the funeral party in circumstances out of control of the staff present. It is unlikely that the Crematorium staff would decide to hold back the service in this particular set of circumstances.”

17. However, the Council acknowledged it could have done more to manage the situation at the time. It said crematorium staff could, for example, have asked the late party to wait outside the chapel until Ms P’s father party had entered, asked the late party to remain quiet during the scheduled minute’s silence, or that it could have rearranged staff to provide more support to the larger party.
18. It is clear the Council was not directly responsible for the disruption to Ms P’s father funeral service. I also accept the Council’s point that, given the size of the late party and the logistical difficulties this created, crematorium staff had limited options to manage the situation and prevent conflict between the two services.
19. It is positive that, despite this, the Council has been willing to be self-critical, and to think creatively about what it could have done better under the circumstances. However, and while I am conscious the Council has said it was at fault, I am in fact not persuaded this is a fair assessment of what happened. There is no suggestion the crematorium staff failed to follow any set procedure or acted unreasonably on the day. The fact the Council has, with the benefit of hindsight, identified learning points does not mean there was substantive fault at the time.
20. I do not mean to dismiss the significance of Ms P’s complaint, nor minimise the obvious distress she and the rest of her family endured because of the clash between the two funeral services. But this does not mean I can reasonably criticise the Council for things which were clearly out of its control, even accepting the learning points it has identified. And, even if I did consider the Council to be at fault, I am satisfied it has already offered an appropriate remedy to Ms P, in refunding the full cost of the service. I would not consider it reasonable to expect the Council to also refund the family’s ancillary costs, as Ms P has requested.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman