Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to take the required precautions when digging a grave, causing it to be unsuitable for its intended use and causing damage to neighbouring headstones. We find no fault in the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council failed to take the proper precautions when digging the grave purchased by his brother, Mr Y. This meant the grave which was purchased for three burials, is only able to hold two burials and the adjacent headstones now lean inwards.
2. Mr X says this has caused his brother additional distress at a difficult time.
3. Mr X wants the Council to repay the costs of the two burials, provide compensation, and to realign the adjacent headstones.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. 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

6. I spoke with Mr X and considered the information he provided.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

8. In 1982, Mr Y purchased a grave located between the graves of his parents and his wife’s parents. According to Mr X, the grave was intended to hold burials of Mr Y, his wife, and one of their children.
9. In 2024, after the death of Mr Y’s wife, the grave was prepared for her burial. The Council says the gravediggers noted that the soil was wetter than usual due to the weather at the time. The grave was dug deep enough to accommodate three burials, and shuttering added. However, shortly after the shuttering was placed, one of the grave walls collapsed underneath it. To ensure safety for the undertakers and mourners, the Council says the gravediggers reinforced the grave with 15-foot scaffold poles and removed the excess soil. Despite these precautions, the opposite side of the grave wall collapsed as the funeral approached. The gravediggers levelled the grave to allow the service to proceed.
10. Two months later, the grave was reopened following the death of Mr Y’s daughter. The grave was prepared the day before the funeral, and a set of shuttering added. On the morning of the funeral, the grave wall collapsed. The Council says the gravediggers levelled the grave to allow the service to take place. They informed the family of the ongoing issues and explained that a third burial in the grave would not be possible.
11. Later that month, the family complained to the Council. They expressed concerns that the gravediggers’ actions had left Mr Y without a resting place and that the adjacent headstones were leaning. The family requested that the grave be made suitable for three burials and that the leaning headstones be realigned.
12. In the same month, the Council responded, explaining that the grave’s collapse was caused by extreme weather and the quick succession of reopening the grave. The Council detailed the steps taken by the gravediggers to ensure the grave was safe for the services. It noted that if the family pursued an exhumation there could be no guarantee the grave would not collapse again. The Council suggested an alternative, the adjacent graves had space to allow Mr Y to be buried next to his wife and daughter. Additionally, the Council cited cemetery regulations stating that it could not be held responsible if factors outside of their control prevented the full number of burials in a grave. The Council also stated it was awaiting a report from the cemetery supervisor about the leaning headstones.
13. In May, the family escalated their complaint, raising the following concerns:
• the Council had breached the Consumer Rights Act (2015);
• the grave collapses were not due to factors outside of the Council’s control but were known risks that were inadequately mitigated;
• the regulations stated in the complaint response were not explained when Mr Y purchased the grave;
• the concern with the headstones was not resolved; and
• asked for a refund of the costs of the two burials.
14. In June, the Council provided its final response. It said:
• the service was provided in line with the Consumer Rights Act and reiterated the cemetery regulations, which state that the Council cannot be held responsible if the number of burials cannot be obtained within a grave;
• the gravediggers have over 25 years’ experience and hold the required qualification for the role;
• graves are no longer able to be purchased for three burials due to the risk of collapse;
• it could not comment on what was discussed when the grave was purchased due to the passage of time; and
• regarding the leaning headstones, quotes for repairs were being obtained to determine next steps.
15. In response to my enquiries the Council explained that the same precautions are taken when digging graves of any depth. In this case, the grave diggers were aware that the ground had not fully settled and that there had been significant rainfall before and between the burials. The grave was dug the day before the second funeral, as wet conditions make the ground less stable, and opening a grave more than 24 hours before a burial increases the risk of collapse.

My findings

16. I am not assessing this complaint under the Consumer Rights Act, as determining such matters is a responsibility for the courts. My role is to consider whether there was fault in the Council’s actions.
17. The Council has explained that the gravediggers followed standard practices, including installing shuttering and digging graves no more than 24 hours before the funeral in wet conditions. External factors, such as unusually wet weather and the quick succession of grave reopening’s, contributed to the soil’s instability, which was beyond the Council’s control.
18. Each time the grave walls collapsed, the gravediggers took proactive measures to ensure safety, such as reinforcing the grave with scaffold poles and levelling the soil for the funerals to proceed. The Council’s regulations also acknowledge that not all graves can accommodate the full number of planned interments due to such factors, indicating the risks were anticipated rather than the result of error.
19. While I acknowledge the distress this situation has caused Mr Y, I have found no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. However, regarding the unresolved matter of the headstones, even in the absence of fault, the Council may wish to consider repairing the neighbouring headstones as a goodwill gesture. I recommend that Mr Y and/or Mr X contact the Council to seek clarification on the next steps.

Back to top

Final decision

I have completed my investigation. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman