Ministry of Defence

5. Mrs C, represented by Mr F, complains about the actions of the MoD after her brother, Private X (Pte X), was killed in Northern Ireland in 1990.

6. Specifically, she says:

• In the period immediately following Pte X’s death, the MoD did not provide a military pattern headstone for him because her mother decided she did not want one, despite her not being in the right frame of mind to make this important decision.

• When Mrs C approached the MoD in November 2019 and asked it to reconsider, it failed to properly consider the reasons for her request, or to provide clear and accurate responses to those requests. She also says that upon receiving her request, it incorrectly led the Minister of State for Defence (the Minister) to understand Pte X’s funeral was not a military funeral, thereby leading the Minister to decline to reconsider the matter.

7. As a result, Mrs C says she has been left significantly distressed Pte X does not have a military pattern headstone and by the MoD's responses to her concerns. She says he made the ultimate sacrifice, and the erection of a military headstone to mark his grave would recognise the courage he showed by serving his country. She also says the MoD's poor handling of her request and its communication have added to her pain.

8. By bringing this complaint to us, Mrs C would like an apology, and for the MoD to reconsider its decision and erect a military pattern headstone to mark Pte X’s grave.

9. Pte X was killed in Northern Ireland in 1990 by the Irish Republican Army (IRA). He was buried in his hometown with full military honours. When a serviceman receives a funeral with full military honours, this means the coffin of the deceased may be draped in a Union Flag and may be carried by serviceman who are still serving the British Armed Forces. Mrs C’s and Pte X’s mother decided at the time she did not want Pte X’s grave to be marked with a military pattern headstone.

10. In November 2019, Mrs C contacted the MoD to raise concerns about the fact Pte X did not have a military pattern headstone. She approached her MP in August 2021 to ask for their assistance.

11. In March 2022, the MoD issued its final response to Mrs C’s complaint. She raised a Freedom of Information (FOI) request with the MoD in the middle of 2022 to see the records it held about Pte X and her complaint.

12. After considering this information, she brought her concerns to us in September 2023.

Military pattern headstone

15. Mrs C complains the MoD did not give Pte X a military pattern headstone because her mother decided she did not want him to have one. She says the decision was taken by her mother, as the next of kin, in the weeks and months following Pte X’s killing, and her mother was therefore not in the right frame of mind to make this important decision.

16. The ‘Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967’ (the Act) says we cannot investigate a complaint unless a person has brought their complaint to their MP within 12 months of first becoming aware of their reason to complain, unless we can see there is good reason for their delays.

17. Mrs C told us her mother was asked by the MoD to make decisions about Pte X’s funeral arrangements, including his headstone. Due to the conflict in Northern Ireland during those years, we understand families did not always want their loved ones’ graves to be marked with markings attributed to the British Armed Forces. In this case, we understand Mrs C’s mother had made the decision Pte X was not to receive a military pattern headstone.

18. Mrs C told us she knew at the time Pte X was buried that she was unhappy he was not given a military pattern headstone. In keeping with the Act, this means she needed to raise her concerns with her MP within 12 months, i.e. in 1991, if she wished to ask our Office to investigate.

19. We can see Mrs C did not raise her concerns with the MoD until 4 November 2019. We have seen no evidence the MoD investigated her concerns at that time, and it stopped responding to her correspondence on this matter in November 2020. We have set out our thinking on the MOD’s complaint handling later in this statement.

20. Mrs C told us she and Mr F continued to do research on matters when the MoD stopped responding, before approaching her MP in August 2021.

21. This means she approached her MP 31 years after she became aware of her reason to complain and 30 years outside of our time limit.

22. We asked Mrs C why she did not raise her concerns with the MoD, and then her MP, sooner. She told us she wanted to discuss her concerns with her mother because she was the next of kin and had made the original decision.

23. However, she was unable to speak to her mother about this because she was distressed about losing her son, as well as losing other close family members in the years previous. Mrs C has told us she did attempt to speak to her mother in the subsequent years following Pte X’s death but, whenever she tried, her mother was not open to discussing those events or the headstone.

24. She has told us it was only in more recent years, after her mother died in 2018, that she started to pursue this matter again. She said this was because she had a chance conversation with Mr F, who is a former member of the Armed Forces, and he told her he thought things had been handled badly by the MoD and he offered to assist her.

25. We understand that the situation Mrs C was in was extremely difficult. Her mother was Pte X’s next of kin, and therefore she was the person who made the decisions about his funeral arrangements, including the headstone. Mrs C explained to us that, after making several attempts over several years to discuss it with her mother, she had decided not to pursue this with her further.

26. Having carefully considered Mrs C’s reasons for not raising her concerns sooner, we cannot see they are strong enough to allow us to set aside our time limit in this case. This is because we need to see exceptional circumstances to put our time limit to one side, particularly for a complaint so significantly outside the limit, which in this case is several decades.

27. It is clear that Mrs C was aware in 1990 that she was unhappy with the actions of the MoD here. This is a personal family matter, and it is clear her mother as next of kin did not want to discuss the headstone with Mrs C over subsequent years. Mrs C respected those wishes in not pursuing it further at the time.

28. It was open to Mrs C to make a complaint and approach an MP at that time and she decided it would be best for her family not to do so. We do not consider this to be a barrier in her raising a complaint significantly sooner; rather, she made an informed choice not to pursue the matter, in what we fully recognise were difficult circumstances. We would like to be very clear that we make absolutely no criticism of Mrs C in making her decision; we must simply also be clear that these reasons do not allow us to set the time limit aside in this case.

29. We are very sorry to hear about Mrs C’s continued distress that Pte X’s headstone is not military patterned. We recognise he died while a serving member of the Armed Forces and she strongly feels his courage and sacrifice should be recognised on his headstone. We also recognise she is upset when she sees other graves in the same cemetery that do have military pattern headstones as this is a painful reminder of what her brother did not receive.

30. With the above in mind, we will take no further action with regard to this aspect of her complaint.

Complaint handling

31. Mrs C complains the MoD failed to properly consider the reasons for her request, or to provide clear and accurate responses to those requests. She also says the MoD incorrectly led the Minister to understand Pte X’s funeral was not a military funeral, thereby leading the Minister to decline to reconsider the matter.

32. The MoD’s ‘Complaints procedure’ sets out its commitment to its users. It says it is committed to providing a high quality of service and it will aim to put things right when it is possible and appropriate. It says it will listen to complaints and treat them seriously. It also says it will learn from its mistakes and if it cannot provide a full response within 20 working days, it will tell people the reason and when they can expect a full response.

33. Our ‘UK Central Government Complaint Standards’ say organisations should give fair and accountable responses by giving a clear and balanced account of what happened, based on established facts. They should provide clear references to any relevant legislation, standards, policies, procedures or guidance and should be accountable for their mistakes. It also says they should reach conclusions based on the evidence available.

34. We consider the MoD has not acted in line with its own commitment and our ‘UK Central Government Complaint Standards’. We think the following evidence is relevant.

35. Despite Mrs C first approaching the MoD in 2019 about her concerns, and after initially engaging in back and forth correspondence, the MoD failed to complete an investigation into her concerns, or produce a final response on matters. It stopped corresponding with her on these matters in November 2020. This led to Mrs C approaching her MP in August 2021. On 27 October 2021 her MP wrote to the MoD and the Minister and asked it to investigate and provide a military headstone for Pte X.

36. On 3 November 2021, the Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre (JCCC), which is the focal point within the MoD for all casualty and compassionate services, provided information to the Minister’s secretariat to confirm Pte X had received a military funeral. They said although the MoD’s records from 1990 suggested it was a private funeral, they were satisfied this this was an error.

37. On 25 November 2021, the Minister wrote to Mrs C’s MP and said Pte X’s funeral was a private funeral with limited military involvement. They said this meant Pte X was not entitled to receive a military pattern headstone. They also said it was the next of kin’s decision at the time to refuse a military headstone and ‘retrospective requests for a military pattern memorial are not usually considered’. They said the MoD would pay £1,000 towards the private headstone currently on the grave, as long as it bears no reference to service in the Armed Forces.

38. On 19 December 2021, Mrs C’s MP responded to the MoD and the Minister and said the information held by the JCCC was incorrect. They provided additional evidence, including a newspaper article, that suggested Pte X’s funeral was a military one. They asked the Minister to reconsider and provide the military pattern headstone on the basis of this evidence.

39. On 11 January 2022, the Minister wrote to Mrs C’s MP and said the MoD was not disputing that Pte X had a full military funeral. They said the ‘fact remains that the Next of Kin took a decision at the time of Pte X’s passing and the MoD cannot subsequently override the decision or wishes of the NOK at a later date’. The Minister repeated the MoD’s offer to pay £1,000 towards the privately purchased headstone, as long as it bore no reference to service in the Armed Forces.

40. In March 2022, the MoD sent a duplication of the letter the Minister had written to Mrs C’s MP in January 2022 to the MP again. It is unclear what prompted it to do this.

41. We think the above shows the MoD initially failed to investigate Mrs C’s complaint, until she asked her MP to intervene.

42. Upon doing so, the MoD sought input from the JCCC, who were best placed to provide information regarding Pte X’s case but the information they provided was not accurately represented in the MoD’s and the Minister’s response in November 2021. Its response initially focussed on the status of the funeral, suggesting this was pivotal to the decision it was making.

43. When further evidence was provided that showed the funeral was a military one (despite this evidence being offered by the JCCC in November 2021 but overlooked) the MoD’s and the Minister’s reasons for refusing the request appeared to change in its letter in January 2022. Specifically, it now said it had made its decision on the basis that the next of kin’s decision could not be overridden, rather than on the basis of the type of funeral held.

44. However, while the MoD made clear in January 2022 that the next of kin’s wishes at the time were to be respected and could not be overturned, irrespective of the family’s views in the present, its response in November 2021 had suggested there were some situations in which retrospective requests may be considered as it said it did not ‘usually’ agree to such requests. It was not expressly clear in November 2021 about what the criteria were for these requests to be considered, and it did not repeat this point in its letter in January 2022.

45. We consider the way the MoD handled Mrs C’s requests meant she was not always clear on the rationale behind its decision making, or the factors it had considered when reaching its decision. Crucially, the MoD had placed significant weight on the status of the funeral, suggesting this was the only criterion on which its decision rested.

46. The MoD told us during our initial enquiries this is not the case, and that it would usually not go against the wishes of the next of kin at the time of events. It told us it would only consider going against the next of kin’s wishes in ‘truly exceptional’ circumstances. We think the MoD should have been clear on this in its initial response to Mrs C’s MP, as in implying that it could exercise discretion in some cases it raised her hopes that she could make a successful argument in this case.

47. We also think the MoD should have explained what it considered to be ‘truly exceptional’ and how it decides if a case meets this threshold. Had it done so, Mrs C would have been clear on what to expect from the MoD, and what options were available to her.

48. We consider this caused frustration, confusion, distress for Mrs C. We also consider this meant she was less convinced by the MoD’s decision-making, and it meant she lost trust in what she was being told. We also think this meant Mrs C pursued her complaint on the understanding that the only reason her request had been refused was because the MoD thought Pte X’s funeral was a private one. For Mrs C, when it was accepted Pte X’s funeral was not a private funeral, the MoD’s unfairly changed it rationale for its refusal was changed.

49. The ‘UK Central Government Complaint Standards’ say organisations should identify suitable and appropriate ways to put things right for service users who raise a complaint. They also say they should explain why things went wrong and should give meaningful and sincere apologies and explanations that openly reflect the impact of their mistakes.

50. Our ‘Principles for Remedy’ say where poor service has led to injustice or hardship, organisations should offer a remedy that returns the affected person in the position they would otherwise have been. When this is not possible, they should compensate them accordingly, which may include making either a financial payment for direct financial loss, or in recognition of an emotional impact.

51. Where the remedy is financial, the organisation should consider the impact of its mistakes on the individual, the length of time taken to resolve the complaint, and the trouble the individual was put to in pursuing the complaint.

52. Further, our ‘Severity of Injustice Scale’ says we consider a payment of between £100 and £450 to be appropriate in instances where we think an apology on its own is not an adequate remedy.

53. It says we consider a payment in this range is appropriate where the impact of an organisation’s mistake is distress, worry, annoyance, or similar, that a healthy adult would be expected to deal with on a regular basis. It is also appropriate in instances where we consider there is poor complaint handling, including if there are delays of up to a year, or longer if the complaint has no substance.

54. In the course of our enquiries the MoD recognised its complaint handling had been poor and we asked it to take action to put things right. It has agreed to write to Mrs C by 31 May 2024 to:

• acknowledge the poor handling of her complaint, and apologise for the distress, confusion and frustration this caused • offer to pay her a financial remedy of £250 in recognition of the impact of its poor complaint handling • explain more clearly why it does not routinely overturn the decision of the next of kin and what it considers to be a ‘truly exceptional’ situation in which it would consider doing so • repeat its offer to pay £1,000 towards the private headstone currently on Pte X’s grave and set out any other options available to her.

55. We consider this is enough to put things right for Mrs C because these actions are line with our ‘UK Central Government Complaint Standards’, ‘Principles for Remedy’, and ‘Severity of Injustice Scale’. With this in mind, we will take no further action.

56. We recognise that Mrs C continues to feel deeply upset and frustrated by these matters, so we hope that we have clearly explained how we reached our decision in her case. We also hope that the remedy we have facilitated through our discussions with the MoD is helpful to her.

1. We have carefully considered Mrs C’s complaint about the Ministry of Defence (MoD). She complains the MoD’s mistakes led to her brother’s grave not being marked with a military pattern headstone. She also complains about the MoD’s handling of her complaint. We recognise the concerns she has brought to us are very personal and continue to cause her distress.

2. We have decided the aspect of Mrs C’s complaint that the MoD’s mistakes led to her brother’s grave being marked without a military pattern headstone to fall outside of our one-year time limit. We are not able to set the limit to one side in this case, based on the evidence available to us.

3. We have seen that the MoD’s complaint handling fell below the standards we expect, as set out in the relevant guidance. We have discussed this with the MoD in the course of our work and it has agreed to take action to put things right for Mrs C, including offering to pay her £250 in financial remedy.

4. We have therefore decided to take no further action regarding Mrs C’s complaint. We explain the reasons for our decision below.