Dignity plc

Following the death of Peter Grant on 10 October 2020, his family has engaged in a campaign against Dignity Funerals Ltd., referring to its modus operandi as a "national scandal" in not allowing responsibility to pass to another undertaker, despite a pre-paid funeral plan being entered into with Dignity.

[7]  That is because, "Dignity Funerals Ltd has stated that it does to others what it did to [his] family" and that includes refusals to comply with family instructions, to pass responsibility to other undertakers, if undertakers are to be used. [8]

Because of the wording in his pre-paid funeral plan, the company obstructed the legal right of the nearest relative to have control over what could be done with Peter's body where and when. It also refused to tell family members what was being arranged. His sister Patsy Richardson stated in a comment at the end of the national newspaper article in the Financial Mail on Sunday, "this is so obviously a matter for the police and the courts". [7]  

Peter's nearest relative is his mother and her attorney is his sister Katherine Daniels. When Sir Ed Davey MP intervened, the High Court of Justice issued her with a document, confirming her legal right to take responsibility for the funeral arrangements but it arrived too late for that purpose. [7]

The Financial Mail on Sunday reported that, "she now believes that people signing up to a pre-paid funeral plan should be required to nominate a person to deal with the funeral arrangements. This would head off any disputes". [7] However, that would perpetuate misunderstandings on long established UK law, in that it is not possible to write "instructions" about funerals into Wills or any other documents. [9]  Consequently, she revised her recommendation calling for, "Consumer protection law [to] be strengthened to prevent repeats of my family’s experience". [10]  

Peter's family tried in vain to persuade South West Middlesex Crematorium in Surrey, to refuse to accept Peter's body from Dignity Funerals Ltd.. In a Freedom of Information request to the crematorium, his brother Donald said, "As you know, [Dignity Funerals Ltd] persisted in refusing to accept instructions from my brother's nearest relative. Had [Dignity Funerals Ltd] not refused to allow another undertaker to take over, my brother would have had a decent and dignified Christian funeral ceremony. That was a right which had been guaranteed by law and his family would have been in full control. Your crematorium's decision had the appearance of colluding with Dignity Funerals Ltd.. That seems at face value to have been in breach of the spirit if not the letter of a number of laws and ... guidance". [8]

Katherine Daniels had requested a thorough investigation, into the crematorium's involvement, in view of what it had been told about the obstruction by Dignity Funerals Ltd.. As an investigation was resisted, she lodged a Freedom of Information request, to obtain necessary information to write her own investigative report.  She draws particular attention to the dangers of the crematorium compounding the actions of Dignity Funerals Ltd.. Those dangers can cause, "threats to the emotional wellbeing and mental health of those newly bereaved", which could result in "family breakdowns". Those are especially harmful, "when children and young people would be impacted, possibly for the rest of their lives".

She refers to "very serious issues" and asked, "what is the crematorium's procedure when those issues are caused by the conduct of [Dignity Funerals Ltd]?" The crematorium made no response. [11]  

Other Freedom of Information requests were submitted to the crematorium, which reveal that its modus operandi fails in very basic ways. [12]  [13]  [14] [15]. It is reasonable to assume, that other crematoria would decline to be involved, when the actions of Dignity Funerals Ltd have strong indications of being contrary to various aspects of law and public sensibilities.