Co-operative Funeralcare

Rub-a-dub-dub

9 October 2012
Charles
35 Comments
Categories: Co-operative Funeralcare

From a Co-operative Funeralcare press release:

Staff at The Co-operative Funeralcare in Copson Street are holding an open day between 10am to 2pm for residents to find out more about the work of a funeral director.

The horse-drawn hearse and  Only Fools and Horses’ fan hearse will be on display to illustrate how funerals can be tailored to individual needs and can help reflect the life of the deceased. A jazz band and piper will also be present, as other examples of how funerals can be personalised.

Visitors will be offered a guided tour of the funeral home, which features an arranging room and a remembrance room, be able to ask questions and view the distinctive hearses.

This is not the first open day Funeralcare has staged recently. They held one at Crouch End in September with the same format. The words of the press release are mostly interchangeable, showing how such a communication can be personalised. “Visitors will be offered a guided tour of the funeral home, which features an arranging room and a remembrance room.”

 They held one at Stockton, too: “It was a huge success,” said Manager David Knowles. “Around 60 people came throughout the day and were given a guided tour of the funeral home, which features an arranging room and three remembrance rooms.”

 The Good Funeral Guide applauds this spirit of openness. We think it will go a long way towards demonstrating to funeral shoppers that their dead will be beautifully looked after when in the tender care of Co-operative Funeralcare. 

A syphilitic blister on the face of funeral service

29 September 2012
Charles
4 Comments
Categories: Co-operative Funeralcare, Dignity, Funeral Partners, LM Funerals

Dear Mr Greenfield,

This has been a horrible week for you. 

Or has it? 

You will have by now appraised your reputational vulnerability, conducted a jeopardy assessment and learned how many people watched The British Way of Death.  Taking heart from the recovery of Co-operative Funeralcare, you may be reckoning your best move is to lie low and wait for the storm to pass. 

You could get lucky. 

Judging by your combative response to the film, you are not a man to roll over easily. Your clear-eyed intellect and tenacity may have calmed your investors, and this may well have been your priority. But how’s your conscience? Do you feel shamed and dishonoured? You displayed no compassion towards those bereaved people who must live with what has been done to them. Your repeated apology, offered without reservation (whatever that means), lacked (I feel) the heartfelt sincerity with which an apology must necessarily be invested. 

You did not give the impression of a man suffering from either remorse or a trashed reputation. I can only put that down to a diminished sense of jeopardy. 

The film’s revelations call into question your competence to run a business. That must hurt. You repose much of your defence in company policies designed to prevent the conduct we witnessed. A policy, Mr Greenfield, is so much hot air, wishful thinking and bumf in a boxfile if it is not supported by a regime of compliance. 

I was unable to watch the film until two days after it was broadcast so I expected, having heard the views of others, to be angered by the behaviour of the staff at Gillman’s. I wasn’t, but I concede that mine is a minority opinion. I was saddened. I witnessed the behaviour of people whose personal standards had been, in my view, corrupted by the culture of their workplace – they had lost touch with decency and right conduct. I am inclined to suppose that a much better version of these same people might have been apparent had they been working for a firm whose vision, values and working conditions they bought into and were proud of, and whose insistence on high standards was reinforced by a rapid-response disciplinary framework. That you should have reckoned Merv Moyes a fit person to be general manager is beyond baffling. You’ve got some great people working for you. Don’t you know the difference? 

Can you tell us, Mr Greenfield, why you opted for brand invisibility? You know perfectly well that the FPL/FSP brand has virtually zero public recognition. The funeral industry is ripe and ready for a great brand to roll out a great service. As we like to say here, if John Lewis did funerals… 

An unexpected upside to the sullying of the good name of Roger Gillman is that any undertaker presently contemplating selling up would have to be mad to include their own name in the sale. So here’s a backhanded compliment: you have played an important part in the cause of transparency of ownership. 

I’ll finish with some reflections by Rory Sutherland on the price of a good reputation. This is extracted from something he wrote in the Spectator on 21 July 2012. Mr Sutherland is vice-chairman of Ogilvy Group UK.

Reputation acts as a kind of cashless deposit in human dealings. As any mafioso or game theorist knows, you can only trust people who have something to lose.

Look at where capitalism works best and you’ll find a business sensitive to shame. 

I recently arranged for my family to fly to the US. What struck me when I clicked ‘buy’ on the BA website is that I now feel less anxious when paying an airline a few thousand quid to hurtle my family across Arctic wastelands in a tin tube than I do when handing £2,000 to a financial institution. Why does the aviation industry make very little money doing something immensely complicated astoundingly well, while the finance sector makes a fortune doing a simple thing badly?

There are a few game-theoretic reasons to explain this. Reputation is one. When even a minor aviation incident occurs, it makes headlines. There is also a healthy sharing of risk. Unlike banks, airlines make the pilot sit at the front of the plane.

Intensifying consumer scrutiny, together with exposés like Undercover Undertaker and The British Way of Death, are contributing incrementally to enhancing the reputational vulnerability of undertakers, especially those stealth consolidators whose brand dares not speak its name.

Whereabouts are you sitting on your plane, Mr Greenfield? Yes, and you Mr Tinning? And you, Mr McCollum? And you, Ms Kemp?

 

 

Problem solved

21 September 2012
Charles
31 Comments
Categories: Co-operative Funeralcare, National Association of Funeral Directors

When Co-operative Funeralcare reported itself to the NAFD in the aftermath of Channel 4’s Undercover Undertaker, it is doubtful whether the industry’s major trade body greeted the ploy with glee. A problem shared is a problem doubled. 

Was it really necessary for Funeralcare to hand themselves in? Inasmuch as the film revealed practices which fell far short of consumers’ expectations of an undertaker, no — obviously. It was clear what they should have done: they should have said sorry. To the public. They needed to have a conversation with the public. 

Why then did they hand themselves in? Presumably they had considered the Cleggalike hands-in-the-air option of apologising and rejected it in the hope of something less disagreeable. They pinned their hopes on the wording of the NAFD code of practice to make it better.

The code of practice is the instrument used by the NAFD to fend off those who would apply external regulation to the funeral industry. Its purpose is to require funeral directors to “observe at all times the basic rights of clients as consumers. To render good service at all times and make fair charges in respect of services rendered and for merchandise supplied.” It is the self-policing manual. 

The NAFD’s  Code of Practice Committee and Professional Standards Board ground into action to consider the case. The review remit was established. According to the report in NAFD house magazine Funeral Director Monthly, “It needs to be understood that the NAFD perspective in considering the programme content has a clear objective to relate the issues raised in the programme to the Rules and Guidelines and the Code of Practice of the Association.”

The first snag they encountered was that standalone hubs are not covered by the code because the code is out of date. The code only covers hubs which incorporate a retail funeral operation — ie, a shop: “The NAFD Rules require that Category A) and B) members notify us of all trading outlets, ie main offices and branches, coming under the membership trading name. Accepting that this requirement has been in the Rules in this form for many years means that, with present day modes of operation, premises as portrayed in the programme do not need to be notified to the NAFD.” (Our bold)

Whoops. (Something stronger, perhaps?)

The report in FD Monthly does not describe with what embarrassment, if any, this was acknowledged. However, Funeralcare helpfully came forward with an undertaking: “It was readily agreed by Funeralcare that the NAFD would be provided with  details of all such “Hub” units operated by Funeralcare, and that we now have immediate access to them at any time without giving notice. For the NAFD, it highlights a need to amend our Rules and procedures to meet the present day operating practices within our varied range of memberships, and to establish clear inspection processes in relation to all premises.”

So that’s all right, then. 

The NAFD went on to consider Funeralcare’s exhortation to its arrangers not to make known the availability of the simple funeral. Verdict? Not guilty. “The programme gave the impression, as other commentators have recently, that the NAFD Code requires funeral arrangers to discuss the availability of the Simple Funeral package with all clients as a matter of course. lt is clear from the Code wording that this is not necessarily the case.”

So there.

Actually, it’s not as bad as that. The NAFD admits it’s got a problem: “It would appear that there may be expectations from a public perception standpoint that require us all as members to consider and maybe review our approach to the Simple Funeral and how we offer it to our clients. For the NAFD, we need to give consideration as to how we strengthen our approach to the subject in the educational materials and the training options provided. The monitoring of compliance aspect is another area we can examine.”

While conceding that Undercover Undertaker was damaging, the NAFD wants to focus on positive outcomes. It asserts that “the future clients of Funeralcare will receive an enhanced service” and the NAFD will up its game a bit. 

Another storm cloud blew away subsequently in the course of a meeting with the Office of Fair Trading. “It was reassuring to know that, whilst they were aware of the programme, they did not view it as a cause for concern on their part, being comfortable in the knowledge that the NAFD has an input into resolving issues the programme raised.”

ED’S NOTE: Apologies for the less than timely treatment of this matter. It’s because we’ve been incredibly busy. Next week’s looking like a bit of a beast too, so if you’ve got something you’d like to blog off steam about, do send it in: charles@goodfuneralguide.co.uk

Council warns undertaker about soliciting

13 August 2012
Charles
6 Comments
Categories: Co-operative Funeralcare

 

Back in July we posted a report about an unsatisfactory Co-op Funeralcare-arranged funeral: “Beverley Webb and Michelle Blakesley said the way Co-op Funeralcare handled Gloria Roper’s service was ‘shambolic’ after one worker said: ‘We’ve brought out our 4.15pm instead.’” Read it here.

The matter we publicise today is Beverley and Michelle’s allegation that the Weymouth branch of Co-operative Funeralcare, acting as the Coroner’s agent, solicited business from them.

Very few bereaved people who have had an unsatisfactory funeral experience follow through. Most shrug and leave it all behind — understandably. It’s why the NAFD receives so few complaints, and is able to point to that as descriptive of the excellence of its members.

The rights of the bereaved are defined and reinforced by cases like this. We all owe Beverley and Michelle a debt.

First, an email from Steve Cheeseman, Business Support & Facilities Manager Dorset County Council:

 

Dear Ms Blakesley and Ms Webb

Once again, I was sorry to read of the difficulties you experienced with the Co-operative FuneralCare at Weymouth following the sudden death of your mother.

I have discussed your complaint with the Western Dorset District Coroner (Michael Johnston) and the South West Sector Manager of Co-operative FuneralCare Services.

Generally, Michael Johnston is happy with the service provided by Co-operative FuneralCare. 

Section 1.14 of the Dorset County Council’s contract for Coroners Removals states:

“The contractor shall not, under any circumstances, actively canvass relatives or friends of the deceased with a view to carrying out the funeral arrangements.  Any infringement may result in the removal of the contractor from the Coroner’s list.  The contractor may leave their business card with the bereaved, but shall, in addition, leave with them a leaflet issued by the Coroner which provides relevant information regarding the arrangement to be made.  The contractor may carry out funeral arrangements if the relative of the deceased makes the initial approach.  It must not be implied to any bereaved family that the contractor must be instructed to carry out the funeral arrangements.  No pressure must be exerted on the bereaved families to attempt to obtain instructions to carry out the funeral arrangements.”

Co-operative FuneralCare has confirmed that their business card was left together with the Coroner’s leaflet.  However, I have written to the Weymouth Co-operative FuneralCare Service reminding them of the terms of the contract and that any breach would result in a review of their contract.

The County Council is responsible for supporting the Coroner in his work, but this does not include the provision of services provided by the funeral directors.  You may be aware, already, that there is a National Association of Funeral Directors and members of the Association are required to abide by a stringent code of practice.  The Association’s professional standards board is responsible for investigating complaints about the conduct of its members and they can be contacted on  0845 230 1343 should you require any further help.

As stated in my earlier e-mail to you, I have dealt with your complaint under Stage 1 of the County Council’s complaints procedure.  If you are not satisfied with the outcome of my investigation, you can ask for your complaint to be considered under Stage 2 of the procedure by writing to the Chief Executive.  

Regards, 

Steve Cheeseman
Business Support & Facilities Manager
County Hall 

 

Here’s text of the Council’s letter to Funeralcare:

 

Dear Ms Lee 

I have received a complaint from Ms Blakesley and Ms Webb relating to the service provided by you following the sudden death of their mother, Gloria Roper.  Their complaint is that you used your contractual position to solicit business and that this was in breach of the contractual agreement with the Dorset County Council.  

I write to remind you that Section 1.14 of the County Council’s contract for Coroners removals states that: 

“The contractor shall not, under any circumstances, actively canvass relatives or friends of the deceased with a view to carrying out the funeral arrangements.  Any infringement may result in the removal of the contractor from the Coroner’s list.  The contractor may leave their business card with the bereaved, but shall, in addition, leave with them a leaflet issued by the Coroner which provides relevant information regarding the arrangement to be made.  The contractor may carry out funeral arrangements if the relative of the deceased makes the initial approach.  It must not be implied to any bereaved family that the contractor must be instructed to carry out the funeral arrangements.  No pressure must be exerted on the bereaved families to attempt to obtain instructions to carry out the funeral arrangements.” 

I have spoken to the coroner for the Western Dorset District, Michael Johnston, who has confirmed that soliciting for services whilst undertaking a service on his behalf, would not be acceptable. 

I write to remind you of the terms the contract and that any such breach would result in a review of your contract for the provision of such services.  

Yours sincerely 

 

Steve Cheeseman

Business Support and Facilities Manager 

cc Mr Jack Walsh, South West Sector Manager, Co-operative FuneralCare

 

This is not the end of Beverley and Michelle’s campaign by any means, by the way. They’re not satisfied with this mere warning shot from Mr Cheeseman. They feel the contract was breached.

 

 

 

 

FD Darren goes the extra mile

13 August 2012
Charles
4 Comments
Categories: Co-operative Funeralcare, coffins, funeral directors

Darren Barker is the manager of Anglia Co-operative*, St Neots. When the family of a little girl who died last year found out how much it would cost to have the Gruffalo painted on her coffin, Darren offered to do it for them. He gave up his days off to do it.

Says local celebrant Viv O’Neil: “He always gives 120% and gets so upset if anything goes wrong.”

The first draft of this piece mistakenly named Co-operative Funeralcare as Darren’s employer

Open letter to George Tinning, Managing Director, Co-operative Funeralcare #4

13 August 2012
Charles
19 Comments
Categories: Co-operative Funeralcare, funeral directors

Dear Mr Tinning,

Woo, sorry! Caught you unawares? Thought we’d lost interest? No, we’re not going away. And not just us. There’s the GMB union, too. As you know, they’re disappointed in you for derecognising them in 2007. You can read their own campaign page here.

How on earth can a co-operative banish a trade union?

In the aftermath of the Dispatches Undercover Undertaker exposé you addressed your ‘colleagues’ and told them that you were going to seek the advice of the NAFD and find out if they could suggest any improvements in your levels of service. How’s that going? We don’t know of any statement from the NAFD about this. Come on, you must have some influence with those guys.

The word on the street is that you think it’s all going to blow over, the storm that followed that programme. Is that what you really think? Is that why you have kept so quiet?

Is that why you have never had the courtesy to reply to any of our letters to you?

If so, then, strategically, that you’re making a mistake. Consumer scrutiny of Funeralworld is going to intensify. As you know, ITV is making its own documentary about the industry. There’s another storm coming very soon. Okay, it may not be Funeralcare at the epicentre this time, but it’ll churn up memories. Worse still, the reputational damage to the entire industry may well be grave. When consumers start to see a pattern, they’re going to reckon all funeral directors are  as bad as each other. There are nasty times a-coming – possibly very nasty times indeed.

There’s going to be renewed call for regulation, isn’t there? Which brings us back to the NAFD. What price their reassurances about the efficacy of self-regulation now?

Mr Tinning, do you begin to recognise the grave damage you have done to the many decent people who work in this industry? Including your own ‘colleagues’?

Good funeral directors are governed by values, not greed. You are the corporate player that lays claim to the values of the Rochdale Pioneers – the highest values there are. The other big players – Dignity, FSP, LM – play by the rules of capitalism. They’re not very good at it, and they’ll fail, but at least they do not pretend to be other than they are. Did you read the comments on this blog written by EX CO OP EMPLOYEE? Read them here and here. What do you say?

Mr Tinning, the governing purpose of the Good Funeral Guide is to sing praises, not dig dirt. It’s sad, weary work, belabouring your organisation. Around 40,000 people visit this site every month from all over the English-speaking world. They all wonder why on earth you do not reply to our letters.

It’s time you acknowledged your accountability and had your say.

With all best wishes,

Charles

The view below the radar

26 July 2012
Charles
2 Comments
Categories: Co-operative Funeralcare, Dignity, funeral cost, funeral directors, funeral trends, Marketing, pre-need plans

An article in the Times dated 15 July, based on an interview with Mike McCollum, ceo of Dignity plc, offers one or two (no more) features of interest.

His definition of an undertaker?

“We’re event organisers,” says McCollum. “We arrange a family event for you on very short notice, which you wish you didn’t have to arrange.”

He adds:

“And, on the day of the funeral, we’re the master of ceremonies. The funeral director makes sure everything goes exactly to plan, to the second, and hopefully makes sure everybody, in an unfamiliar situation, knows where to sit and where to go.”

He doesn’t say if he regards this model as eternal, nor whether he is aware of trends towards empowered mourners who take a different view of the brief of a funeral event planner.

Concerning the travails of his reassuringly inept rivals, ‘Co-operative’ Funeralcare, he is defensive of the hub model and reckons “it’s time people accepted some home truths”.

“The definition of a mortuary is a place where dead people are kept. When people die and they can be in different conditions. You need specialist refrigeration, specialist conditions. You’d expect them to be clinical, to use stainless steel equipment, to be easy to clean. They’re not necessarily going to be nice places to be.”

Hmn.

By way of assuring Times readers who are also Dignity shareholders, the article points out that Dignity’s market capitalisation has risen from £180m to £446m and the share price from 230p to 810p. The writer does not detect the present injurious effect of underfunded funeral plans. Nor does he point out Dignity’s Achilles heel, its high prices, vulnerable, in an increasingly price-conscious market, to consumer scrutiny. Nor does he question Dignity’s policy of brand omerta, a remarkable stance for an outfit in the event-planning business.

Would you buy shares in Dignity?

Source (paywalled)

There but for the grace…

23 July 2012
Charles
2 Comments
Categories: Co-operative Funeralcare

From the Sun, 18 July:

An undertaker with Britain’s biggest funeral firm has been arrested on suspicion of snatching a dead gran’s savings.

Former Co-operative Funeralcare worker Grahame Lawler, 37, is suspected of rifling through the pensioner’s household belongings less than an hour after she died.

Could happen to any funeral director?

The Sun understands the woman, in her 70s, was “still warm” when her possessions were taken from the home.

What’s that got to do with it?!

Sun story here.

Daily Mail version here

Open letter to George Tinning, Managing Director, Co-operative Funeralcare #3

18 July 2012
Charles
8 Comments
Categories: Co-operative Funeralcare

Dear Mr Tinning,

I found myself, this morning, entertaining one of those whimsical thoughts that pops into our heads when we’re showering. Have you noticed how people tend to say ‘He’s been dead for 30 years, now’ instead of, ‘He died 30 years ago’? It’s as if they regard death as something akin to a state of being. I wonder if there’s an insight there into subconscious existential belief in a secular age? What do you think?

Look, I mustn’t distract you when you have obviously got a lot on your plate. How do I know you have? Because this is the third letter I have written to you, and you haven’t replied to the first yet.

How’s it going with the re-think? Are we any closer to founding principles? Am I getting ahead of myself? Have you picked yourselves up yet?

I ask because your website still carries a video clip of you giving your reaction to that Dispatches programme before the programme went out. Mr Tinning, you cannot respond to something before it has happened! You urgently need to speak to those many people who are still in shock as a result of what they saw. Please, break the silence.

While you’re about it, you might like to have a word with the person who worded the answers to the FAQs on that same webpage. There is one question:

Are deceased stored naked in mortuary facilities?

to which the answer is:

No, a deceased should not be stored naked the modesty of the deceased is maintained at all times and in addition the deceased will always be covered with a clean white sheet.

Let’s agree to draw a veil over the missing full stop after ‘naked’. Let’s talk instead about the word ‘deceased’. It’s used a lot by the funeral industry but, like the term ‘hygienic treatment’, it’s not much used by anyone else except, perhaps, as a dainty euphemism by the genteel. It’s jargon, George. If you insist on using it, understand that it is most commonly used as an adjective but, when used as a noun, can only be accompanied by the definite article. You can no more talk about ‘a deceased’ than you can talk about ‘deceaseds’.

Listen to it. ‘Deceased’ is sibilant. It gives off a double hiss like escaping gas. Not euphonious, George. It sounds neuter. It’s a horrible word. Divorce it.

And remember: so far as most people are concerned, a deceased, inanimate as it may be, is still a person, whose care is a sacred task.

That’s all I’ve time for. Before I go, a quick reminder. When you’ve got positive and reassuring messages you’d like to pass on to funeral shoppers, do let us know. We really want to get behind you.

With all best wishes,

Charles

PS You’ll have picked up that there is a great deal of talk these days about funeral poverty, and you know that more and more people are finding it difficult to pay for a funeral. I’m sure you will have been inspired by the example of your sister Canadian funeral co-ops: ‘the average cost of a funeral in Canada in 2004 was CAD$6,325, while the average cost of a cooperative funeral was $3,677.’ It puts one in mind of one of the core principles of the Rochdale Pioneers: to enable working people to buy that which they would not otherwise be able to afford.

Follow-up letter to George Tinning, Managing Director, Co-operative Funeralcare

10 July 2012
Charles
19 Comments
Categories: Co-operative Funeralcare

Dear Mr Tinning,

It’s almost a fortnight since I wrote to you on 27 June. You haven’t replied. I’m disappointed, of course. I’m not wholly surprised, though. You’ve had a lot on your plate in the aftermath of Undercover Undertaker — and now you’ve got an Early Day Motion in Parliament to contend with. The reputation of Funeralcare is in tatters. What a distressing thing to happen in the middle of the United Nations International Year of the Co-operatives. 

Well, it was all bound to come out some time. I hope you see that, now. 

I am determined to look on the bright side. I like to believe that you are preoccupied with a full review of the way you operate so that you can relaunch Funeralcare with the core values of co-operation reinstalled, together with a renewed sense of mission both to the bereaved and to those who serve them. It must be reassuring to you to know that you employ some really good, caring people. They deserve better of their management. 

So I simply want to repeat my offer: when you have faith-restoring messages that you need to get out to the public, please let us know so that we can do our bit to publicise them. The raison d’être of the Good Funeral Guide is, let me remind you, to direct funeral shoppers to the best people in funeral service. Our core purpose is to sing praises, not to shower blame. 

It’s not just the audience of the Good Funeral Guide I want you to reach out to. Before you write to me, please would you write to Sharon McCoy in Runcorn. She has written to you, too, and she, likewise, has not had a reply. She endured a thoroughly unsatisfactory funeral arranged by Co-operative Funeralcare. Of its many unsatisfactory elements, the most distressing was the loss of her mother’s jewellery when it was transferred to another branch. She needs a better and more plausible explanation than the one she has been given, Mr Tinning. Above all, she deserves an apology. When you address this matter, you might look into your complaints procedure, too. When Sharon rang your Client Relations department she was to all intents and purposes stonewalled. 

I very much look forward to hearing from you.

With all best wishes,

Charles