Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 18th July 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Sheffield Star site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Row over second-hand gravestone



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

A HEARTBROKEN Sheffield family paid hundreds of pounds for a memorial for their late mum - only to discover the base was an old gravestone.
Sisters Carol Walters and Sue Kelly were horrified when, after eight years of problems, they had their mum Lilian's memorial removed from City Road Cemetery - revealing an inscription for a stranger on the underside.

The marble base had once been a gravestone to 'Gertrude' with the words, 'dearly loved wife of Albert Birkinshaw died Sep 2 1952 aged 41 years'.

Devastated Carol, aged 44, of Parson Cross, Sheffield, said it felt as if they had never laid their mum to rest.

She added: "We have both been heartbroken, every time we've visited mum's grave we've been laying flowers at someone else's gravestone. We would never have known if we hadn't switched stonemasons. We couldn't keep it from our dad Edwin and he's gutted.

"This firm shouldn't be allowed to do it, little did we know we were paying all that money for a secondhand stone, it's pure upset. How many more are there?"

The family paid K's Memorials, of City Road, £665 for a marble memorial in the shape of an open book when 71-year-old Lilian Walters died in 1997.

But within 18 months the lettering had been damaged by rain.

K's Memorials installed a new memorial but the sisters rejected it because it was not identical to the original and the lettering was in capitals.

Twice more over the next eight years the firm installed a new stone book but the work failed to satisfy the family and the sisters eventually went to another company.

An identical marble book was ordered from Italy and when the new stonemason lifted the old base the writing was revealed.

Sue, 54, of Worsbrough, Barnsley, said: "It's not that we were picky, we just wanted what we paid for."

The sisters took the firm to the small claims court to get a full refund but K's sent a cheque before the hearing.

Craig Elliott, manager of K's Memorials, insisted using second-hand gravestones had been industry-wide common practice for years.

Gravestones were removed when families wanted to update or replace them, and it was common to reuse them as bases. But since the row the firm had banned them.

He added: "Under no circumstances am I saying what is done is correct, but in my defence it's common practice. I'm throwing out two or three skips of old gravestones a month and it makes sense to reuse and recycle them.

"Legally we've done nothing wrong and my solicitor told me we were fools to settle before the court hearing. But I did it to stop the upset."

The firm had paid out a total of £1,159 in refunds, costs and compensation.

READ MORE
Main news index
Readers' Letters

The full article contains 478 words and appears in Sheffield Star newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 04 April 2008 9:07 AM
  • Source: Sheffield Star
  • Location: Sheffield
 
Prev
1
Next
1

,

04/04/2008 11:02:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

bowler1,

sheffield 04/04/2008 15:02:14
in reply to kevan smiths comment
at least he got a new one and not a secondhand one
that this poor family got. Ks. should be ashamed of
themselfs i for one will not use them
3

Kevan Smith,

Sheffield 04/04/2008 18:30:22
I do not want to add further distress to the family so I have removed my previous comments. Please accept my appologies.
4

lanny,

chesterfield 05/04/2008 10:21:37
I think its disgusting. I believe the family are using a sensitive issue to try and make money. It seems to me that it was a re-cycled BASE that was UPTURNED... not the actual headstone? So whats the fuss... in this day & age re-cycling is SO important, if companies are trying to reduce waste surely that is only a good thing? The mason has said its common practise & i believe so. They cant possibly mine, dig or source EVERY head, base & other bits from brand new, there would soon be no marble left?! The family have said 'we are not being picky...' surely you are if EIGHT years after it was fitted you are still complaining so much so that you bring other masons in to replace it? If it genuinely was not right it should have been dealt with EIGHT years ago?! It seems to me that they just wanted any excuse to have a new stone or try to re-cuop some money? Ks have refunded to an amount ALMOST DOUBLE the original cost, replaced the memorial TWICE and EIGHT years on the family see fit to go to the papers... what exactly do they hope to gain from this? Distressing more families? Apparently this has been upsetting for them....so why cause other people unnecessary worry & upset? K's has been around for as long a i can remember, i dont know of its the same people, i have never had to use them, but would not hesitate to. Im sure they have many very satisified customers and are glad to see the back of these, I would be. Im sorry to say their behaviour disgusts me.
5

Mr David Cooper,

Sheffield 05/04/2008 12:00:07
I have recently contacted K's to hear their side of the story & i have been told that the used headstone in question was used as a base to support a small marble book & wedge which was placed in the centre of the grave.
They informed me that rather than using a piece of concrete or other man made products, they thought that from an asthetic perspective that it would look better mounted onto a piece of marble.
The base was set UNDER GROUND so was not even visable, only the top & edge could be seen.
As a customer of K's I am unable to see the problem. Re-cycling should be encouraged. The memorial itself was not second-hand.
6

Carol & Sue,

Sheffield 05/04/2008 17:08:42
WOT MONEY are you on about so called lanny ?
7

nanna,

sheffield 06/04/2008 09:18:02
After reading this article I feel the family have other deep seated issues with the loss of their mother and its them that have not laid her to rest. They are using K's memorials to vent their anger over their loss. As for K's using recycled produce GOOD FOR THEM THEY SHOULD NOT BE CONDEMNED FOR THIS!!! Everyone should recycle as much as possible to enable our children to have a world as we have. It seems to me that k's have tried with this family but nothing they did would satisfy the replacing of the memorial even giving them twice the amount they paid back. I wonder how many other companies would have gone to these lengths and after all that the family went to the papers SHAME ON THEM!!!! Some people are never satisfied. I will after reading this always recommend K's as it seems they care for bereaved families, the environment and our childrens future.
8

bowler1,

07/04/2008 11:12:24
the reply to
LANNEY OF CHESTERFIELD
Mr DAVID COOPER
NANNA OF SHEFFIELD
ON THE SUBJECT GRAVE STONE
WILL BE SENT IN A LETTER TO THE STAR AND HOPEFULLY
IT WILL BE PRINTED
9

Katypops,

Sheffield 08/04/2008 17:36:20
I think if K's had informed this family of their so called "common practice" of re-using old stones & plinths, which I have never heard of before, then it wouldn't be as bad as them just finding out by accident. How many people are feeling the need to go & look at their own families stones now!! Can you imagine how this poor family must feel. I know how I would have felt. I don't think they're out to make money from K's or they would have asked for compensation. We live in a "sue anyone for anything" society these days!! If K's had done their job professionally & correctly neither party would have had all this upset.
Prev
1
Next

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.