Council is forced to ditch plans to slap 20 per cent 'fat tax' on wider burial plots after facing a furious backlash
The embarrassing U-turn comes after the City of Wolverhampton Council was accused of 'discrimination' against larger people and a 'lack of empathy' towards grieving families.
The premium which was given the go ahead in May would mean a 6ft-wide plot at Danescourt Cemetery in Tettenhall, Wolverhampton would cost families £2,700 - a hefty 20 per cent premium on the cost of a standard 5ft grave.
However, after facing criticism over the move, a spokesperson for the council said 'we have decided not to proceed with the plans'.
Ross Hickton, of Hickton Family Funeral Directors in the West Midlands, said the 'fat tax' would 'push more people into funeral poverty'.
'If you live in Wolverhampton, you have the right to be buried here without extra costs.
'You shouldn't be paying a premium for a basic right. It shows a lack of empathy for what a family goes through.'
Danescourt Cemetery in Tettenhall was due to charge families £2,700 to buy a 6ft wide plot, a 20 per cent increase on the cost of a standard 5ft grave
The council said it had considered the extra charge after an increase in demand for larger graves
Mr Hickton claimed that the local authority, which has also increased its council tax by the maximum 4.99 per cent, failed to consult the public on the move.
'Wolverhampton passed this under the radar. If you've paid into the system your whole life, through council tax and income tax, you shouldn't be forced to pay an additional 20pc tax,' he added.
The council had told the BBC that the extra charge was needed after an increase in demand for larger graves.
Rosemarie McLaren who is from Wolverhampton said it was a form of 'discrimination' and that it was 'not acceptable'
'Someone like me who's a bit bigger, is going to be charged [more] because I'm fat,' she added.
The city has higher than normal obesity rates of 33.3 per cent, compared with the national average of 25.9 per cent, according to a 2021 survey.
A spokesperson said the local authority contacted 25 funeral directors serving the city and 10 responded with only one objection.
The council said the extra costs reflected 'the increased costs incurred in providing them, including disposing of the additional soil'.
'Many other local councils, including Birmingham and Walsall, charge higher fees for larger graves', the spokesperson added.
However, a City of Wolverhampton Council spokesperson told the Mail this afternoon: 'No formal decision was ever taken on plans to charge more for larger burial plots.
'This is a common practice taken by councils around the country where higher charges cover the costs of providing a larger plot.
'However, while under consideration, we have decided not to proceed with the plans.'
The BBC found that a third of 27 local authorities in the West Midlands charged more for wider graves including Telford, Birmingham, Walsall, Coventry and Staffordshire.
Houghton Regis Town Council in Bedfordshire was one of the first council's to introduce higher prices for larger coffins by doubling fees back in 2009 taking the cost from £364 to £728.
It's website states: 'Where the coffin width is such that the burial encroaches into the next available burial plot, such that it cannot be used, the above fees will be increased by 50per cent.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
20 minutes ago
- BBC News
Nigel Farage urges PM to appoint Reform peers to House of Lords
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has called on the prime minister to allow him to appoint peers to the House of Lords. In a letter to Sir Keir Starmer, Farage said he wanted "the democratic disparity" in the upper chamber to be addressed, suggesting it was unfair that parties with fewer MPs were has four MPs in the House of Commons and controls ten councils in England, but currently has no appointments to the Lords are made at the discretion of the prime minister. Downing Street has been approached for comment. The House of Lords is a part of Parliament. It scrutinises the work of government and is independent from the House of Commons, where MPs sit. Members of the Lords are called peers. Like MPs, they scrutinise the work of government and recommend changes to proposed legislation. There are currently more than his letter, Farage said: "My party received over 4.1 million votes at the general election in July 2024. We have since won a large number of seats in local government, led the national opinion polls for many months and won the only by-election of this Parliament."Farage added that he was in favour of reforming the Lords, but that "the time has come to address the democratic disparity that exists in the upper house".He noted that the Green Party, Plaid Cymru and Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) have 13 peers between also pointed out that the Liberal Democrats have 76 peers, despite winning fewer votes than Reform at the previous election. The Lib Dems currently hold 72 seats in the Commons, making them the third largest party after Labour and the Conservatives."None of this holds water any longer given the seismic shifts that have taken place in British politics," Farage said his request to appoint peers was "modest", but did not outline who he would nominate if given the opportunity to do May, Reform made sweeping gains in local elections, as well as winning the Runcorn and Helsby by-election by just six success led Farage to claim that Reform UK was now the main opposition prime minister is under no constitutional obligation to elevate members of opposition parties, but will often ask opposition leaders to nominate individuals for December, Sir Keir appointed 30 new Labour peers, including his former chief of staff Sue Gray. The Conservatives appointed six new peers, while the Liberal Democrats appointed year, MPs backed plans to get rid of hereditary peers from the House of Lords.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
We want to sell our listed house — do we need an EPC?
Q. We want to sell our listed house. The estate agents say we may not need an energy performance certificate (EPC) but should get one anyway. Do we need an EPC for a listed house? A. EPCs record the energy efficiency of buildings, rated from A to G. It is a common misconception that they are not needed for listed properties. It is far more complicated than that. The basic requirements are set out in part 2 of the Energy Performance of Buildings (Certificates and Inspections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007. Regulation 6 requires a valid EPC to be available whenever a building is to be sold. The maximum penalty for marketing or selling a property without a valid EPC is £5,000, although prosecutions are rare. • Read more expert advice on property, interiors and home improvement Under regulation 5, certain properties are exempt from these requirements, including 'buildings officially protected as part of a designated environment or because of their special architectural or historical merit'. Although this potentially exempts listed buildings and houses in conservation areas, they are only excluded if 'compliance with certain minimum energy performance requirements would unacceptably alter their character or appearance'. For example, government guidance notes that many typical EPC recommendations — such as double glazing, new doors and windows, external wall insulation and external boiler flues — would probably cause unacceptable changes in most historic buildings. This presents a problem in that listed building owners are unlikely to know whether they will need an EPC without first asking an EPC assessor to advise on what energy efficiency measures are needed. Owners may also need to consult with their listed buildings officer to anticipate queries from potential buyers about any advice set out in the EPC. In addition, in December 2024, the government launched a consultation about reforms to the regime, which include proposals to bring all listed buildings within the EPC net. It is probably best to commission an EPC before marketing a listed house, even if it turns out that a valid certificate is not required by legislation. Mark Loveday is a barrister with Tanfield Chambers. Email your questions to
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Five key points on how a long-respected US human rights report became a ‘cudgel' under Trump
In May, Donald Trump took to the stage at a business conference in Saudi Arabia's capital, promising that the US would no longer chastise other governments over human rights issues or lecture them on 'how to live and how to govern your own affairs'. With the release this week of the US government's annual report on human rights worldwide, the president has – in part – followed though on that pledge. The report – compiled by the state department – softens its criticism of nations that have sought closer ties with the US president, while alleging 'significant' human rights breaches among traditional allies across Europe, all while vastly scaling back criticism of discrimination against minority groups. The report's claims of 'no credible' human rights abuses in Hungary and El Salvador sit at odds with the state department's own report from a year earlier, which described the situation in Hungary as 'deteriorating', while highlighting 'arbitrary killings', 'enforced disappearance' and 'torture' in El Salvador. In April, a delegation of EU lawmakers warned that the rule of law in Hungary is 'rapidly going in the wrong direction' under Viktor Orbán's government. They highlighted threats to press freedom and targeting of minorities. In June a law banning content about LGBTQ+ people from schools and TV was found to violate basic human rights and freedom of expression by a scholar at the European court of justice. Meanwhile, activists and opposition leaders in El Salvador have warned the country is on the path towards dictatorship after its congress scrapped presidential term limits, paving the way for President Nayib Bukele to seek indefinite re-election. Bukele's hardline approach to crime has been accompanied by an assault on civil society and democratic institutions. Orbán and Bukele have both positioned themselves as Trump adherents – with El Salvador opening up a notorious mega-prison to detain US deportees. Orbán, who came to power in 2010, was once described as 'Trump before Trump' by the US president's former adviser Steve Bannon. France, Germany and the United Kingdom are among the European countries singled out as having seen a worsening human rights situation. The picture is a far cry from the previous report, which saw no significant changes. Criticism over the handling of free speech – in particular relating to regulations on online hate speech – was directed at the governments of the UK, Germany and France. The criticism comes despite the US itself moving aggressively to deny or strip visas of foreign nationals over their statements and social media postings, especially student activists who have criticised Israel. Since being returning to power, Trump and his administration have stepped up criticism of traditional allies – in February the vice-president, JD Vance, accused European leaders of suppressing free speech, failing to halt illegal migration and running in fear from voters' true beliefs. The report also singles out Brazil, where Trump has decried the prosecution of former president Jair Bolsonaro. Brazil, the report says, has 'undermined democratic debate by restricting access to online content deemed to 'undermine democracy.'' The report's section on Israel and the Palestinian territories is much shorter than last year's edition and contains no mention of the severe humanitarian crisis or death toll in Gaza. It acknowledges cases of arbitrary arrests and killings by Israel but says authorities took 'credible steps' to identify those responsible. More than 61,000 people have been killed in Gaza, the Gaza health ministry says, as a result of Israel's military assault after an attack by Palestinian militant group Hamas in October 2023 in which 1,200 people were killed. Sections within the report highlighting discrimination have been vastly pared back. Any criticism focused on LGBTQI rights, gender-based violence or racial and ethnic violence which appeared in Biden administration editions of the report, appear to have been largely removed. A group of former state department officials called some omissions 'shocking,' particularly highlighting the lack of detail on Uganda, which in 2023 saw the passing of some of the harshest anti-LGBTQ+ laws in the world, including the death penalty for some homosexual acts. For decades, the report has been used as a blueprint of reference for global rights advocacy – but critics have labelled this year's edition politically driven. 'The report demonstrates what happens when political agendas take priority over the facts,' says Josh Paul, a former state department official, adding 'the outcome is a much-abbreviated product that is more reflective of a Soviet propaganda.' In April, secretary of state Marco Rubio wrote an opinion piece saying the bureau that prepares the report had become a platform for 'left-wing activists,' and vowed that the Trump administration would reorient it to focus on 'western values'. State department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said the report was restructured to improve readability and was no longer an expansive list of 'politically biased demands and assertions'. Democratic party lawmakers, however, have accused Trump and Rubio of treating human rights only as a 'cudgel' against adversaries, in a statement released this week. Rubio's state department has 'shamelessly turned a once-credible tool of US foreign policy mandated by Congress into yet another instrument to advance Maga political grievances and culture war obsessions,' said Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. With Reuters
