Advertisement

Woman's ashes to be exhumed after council accidentally sold the same grave plot twice

The plot was sold twice following a mix-up [stock image] - Christopher Furlong/Getty Images 
The plot was sold twice following a mix-up [stock image] - Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

A woman must be exhumed and moved from her grave after council errors meant she was accidentally buried in a plot which had already been sold to someone else. 

The grave plot was originally sold to Jennifer Phillips in 1987, because she wanted her and her husband to be buried next to her parents. 

But the council's poor record-keeping meant the space in Welton Road Cemetery, Daventry, was sold again in 2015 to Sonia Ducker, whose mother was then buried there following cremation. 

The blunder only came to light after Mrs Phillips visited her parents' grave and noticed a wooden cross on the plot where she herself had planned to be buried. 

Now Sandra Cleaver, 72, must be exhumed after a church court ruled that it would be detrimental for Mrs Phillips to continue to visit her mother's grave and see the grave where she was meant to be buried with someone else in it. 

In a ruling David Pittaway QC, chancellor of the diocese of Peterborough, said the case was a rare exception to the principle that Christian burial was permanent and remains should not be disturbed. 

He added that if the exhumation did not take place the two families could end up visiting their relatives at the same time, which could cause "unnecessary stress and distress". 

If I were to permit Mrs Cleaver’s cremated remains to remain [Mrs Phillips] would go to her grave in the knowledge that her long expressed wish to be buried behind her parents’ grave had been frustrated.

David Pittaway QC

"Mrs Phillips refers in her witness statement to this having occurred on two occasions already, on one of which Mrs Ducker’s family held themselves back whilst the other family was at the grave," he said. 

He added: "If I were to permit Mrs Cleaver’s cremated remains to remain and, in due course a memorial was erected, there would be a permanent reminder to Mrs Phillips every time she visited her parents’ grave that she would have been buried in plot A239 but for the Council’s mistake. 

"Moreover, she would go to her grave in the knowledge that her long expressed wish to be buried behind her parents’ grave had been frustrated."

The judge said there were were "several errors surrounding the Council’s attempts to remedy the situation, which could, with more care, have been avoided. 

"For example, amongst others, the original letter to Mrs Ducker specified the wrong plot number and the alternative plot offered was not available."

He added that the case has had "a deleterious effect on both Mrs Phillips and Mrs Ducker’s health and on the health of other members of their respective families."

The council agreed to pay costs up to £1,500 for each family but both were forced to hire lawyers for the hearing, including a QC, and are thought to have incurred legal costs reaching into the tens of thousands of pounds. 

[The mistake has had] a deleterious effect on both Mrs Phillips and Mrs Ducker’s health and on the health of other members of their respective families.

David Pittaway QC

In his judgment, made last month, Mr Pittaway said the council needed to "show cause as to why they should not pay the other parties’ costs". It is understood that they have since submitted their reasoning, and the families are set to put forwards their explanations of who they think should pay. A court will then decide who foots the bills. 

A spokesman for Daventry District Council said “We are very sorry for the distress our mistake has caused and we have offered our most sincere apologies to both of the families involved.

"It is deeply regrettable that a recording error made by the Council in the mid-1980s has led to two families having conflicting rights over one grave, and we will fully comply with the consistory court’s judgement.

"In recognition of our error, the Council offered to fund the legal costs of both families up to £1,500, which would have been sufficient for a court decision based on written representations. 

"With a full hearing sought, we understand both families have incurred higher legal costs, and we await the decision of the court as to how those additional costs should be met.”