Fairer Finance & Funeral Plans: James Dunn Responds 3

fairer finance

Fairer Finance, a consumer group whose aim is to get people fairer deals from financial services, recently published a report into funeral plans. Over 200,000 funeral plans are sold each year in this entirely unregulated market, so the report took a detailed look at the major players in the funeral plan world and how they do business.

 

The report was funded by Dignity PLC, a £1.2bn FTSE 250 listed company, who are the second largest provider of funeral services in the UK. Dignity are also one of the largest providers of funeral plans in the UK. Although they funded the report, James Daley of Fairer Finance was quick to reassure readers that “Fairer Finance was given full editorial control of the report, including the right to criticise the conduct of Dignity.

 

As one of few investigations into the plan market, this report received a lot of press attention and is likely to be referenced for years to come. One of our founders, James Dunn, read the report eagerly on its release and collected some thoughts.

 

Within this post there is a number of questions addressed to Fairer Finance. We have sent these over to James Daley of Fairer Finance and will update this post in the event that he responds.

 

UPDATE 17/07: James Daley has responded to our questions. We have included his responses inline.

 

Information about our own funeral plan can be found here.

 

***

 

Firstly, I’d like to say that I welcome the Fairer Finance report into funeral plans. Beyond may be a relatively new arrival to the funeral plan industry, but in the seven months since we’ve been selling plans we’ve quickly learnt that the industry is in a bit of a mess.

 

Actually, let’s not beat around the bush – it doesn’t take a genius to see that the funeral plan market is a disaster waiting to happen. Widespread reports of pressure selling, opaque funds, comparison sites with no comparison, families left making up shortfalls, funeral directors refusing to take plans…this litany of malpractices adds up to a prime time TV expose in the making. This list of murky practices is longer even than the list of clauses found in many plan contracts.

 

So, against this backdrop, we thought it would be remiss of us not to put a few questions back to Fairer Finance (and their sponsors, Dignity) on their report.

 

Commissions, commissions, commissions. What is fair? What is reasonable? And where, oh where is Age UK’s tasty £9.4 million?

 

Commissions. You get someone else to sell your product because you don’t believe you can sell it yourself. In return, you’re happy to give them a kickback for selling the product you couldn’t sell. Commissions are odd, commissions are murky.

 

The report rightly identifies one of the key concerns with commissions, “it is often difficult for customers to tell where their money is ending up”.

 

Golden Leaves, Golden Charter and Safe Hands are all identified as companies paying commissions. The author mentions other cases and ends with the forthright conclusion that, “High-pressure sales and misrepresentation of products identified by this report are likely to be driven by the commission received by operatives for making a sale”.

 

It’s pretty odd then that the report totally fails to question Dignity over their relationship with Age UK and the commissions paid. This was big news last year with Age UK castigated for accepting millions of pounds to promote a particular funeral firm – which allegedly charges significantly more than some rivals.

 

It took us only a cursory search to find the figures that drew this outrage. Age UK sold 18,000 funeral plans for Dignity and got an eye-watering £9.4 million back.

 

It does not take advanced calculus to figure out this is £522 commission per plan sold. Great work for a charity helping the elderly if you can get it.

 

And so, my first question to James Daley of Fairer Finance is…Why did you not look at the commissions paid by Dignity to Age UK and why did these not feature in your report?

James Daley confirmed that he had asked providers about commissions and that they did not want to share them with him. Mr Daley states that he had not previously seen the Age UK article we referenced in the Independent. He has now raised this with Dignity and is awaiting a response. Mr Daley states that he agrees with our sentiment that commissions are probably too high and that he believes at the very least they should be disclosed. Mr Daley also points out that he believes there are bigger issues concerning size of margins in the funeral industry generally.

 

The one where the author can’t get in touch with Dignity

 

Everyone expects a funded report to be somewhat relaxed on holding the funder to account. That’s just par for the course. However, it shows startling chutzpah to let the funder off the hook in one paragraph and then lay into their largest rival in the next.

 

The author, no doubt devoted to his quest for transparency and fairness, asked the Co-op what their admin fee was. We think this is a fair question so sympathise with the author when he writes, “Co-op refused to tell us how much it takes as an admin fee, claiming that this was commercially sensitive.”

 

Pretty clear to us that the author doesn’t think too highly of this. Yet, did our eyes deceive us when we read about Dignity’s admin fee just two sentences earlier?

 

On Dignity: “Dignity pays all customer money into a trust, after which a payment is immediately made back to Dignity to cover the costs of selling and administering the plans. It’s not clear how much this is.

 

I mean, bloody hell. There are two options here. Either the author failed to ask Dignity what their admin fee was or he asked them and then refused to report it. You just can’t get away with that if you then have a go at a company for not being transparent in the next paragraph.

 

So, let’s ask Fairer Finance then…Did you request the admin fee from Dignity? If you did, what was their response?

Mr Daley confirmed that he requested the admin fee from Dignity and that they did not disclose it. Mr Daley explains that the Coop was uncooperative with him at first and that this led them on balance to be a bit harsher to Coop than Dignity. Mr Daley adds that since the publication of the report the Coop has been more supportive. Mr Daley also points out that the word “also” was removed from our text and that this had been meant to imply that both Coop and Dignity had refused. We removed this because we felt it superfluous in the context but we recognise that this wording could be intended to put Coop and Dignity in the same bracket (i.e. both were asked and both refused).

 

Another example of fitting the evidence to the narrative is when the author looks at cancellation fees. Two customer quotes are used in this section to show customers’ distaste of these fees. One for Safe Hands, whose fee is £495, and one for Open, whose fee is £345.

 

Dignity boasts the second highest cancellation fee at £395 yet somehow not a single customer contacted by Fairer Finance had a bad word to say about it?

 

Caught between a rock and a hard place. How Dignity has its competitors in a bind over cremation fees…

 

Dignity is one of only two providers who fully guarantee cremation costs. Guaranteed costs are an unreservedly good thing for customers. They remove any question that there will be a shortfall in plan value when the time comes.

 

So, are Dignity good because they guarantee cremation costs?

 

Well, kind of.

 

The question the report fails to ask is ‘Why do these plans end up with such massive shortfalls?’

 

Could it have anything even remotely to do with Dignity charging the highest cremation fees in the country?

 

As our 2017 Cremation & Burial Cost Index showed, Dignity have the dubious honour of operating the most expensive crematoria in the country, charging a huge £999 in some areas. Nine of their sites charge this lofty thousand-minus-one price. To further burnish their high costs, Dignity operate 16 of the top 20 most expensive crematoria in the country. Without wanting to labour the point too much, the average price at a Dignity crematoria is 18% higher than the national average.

 

Put simply, a Dignity crematorium is an expensive place to be cremated.

 

Dignity aren’t just the most expensive cremation company. They are also the largest. Dignity control 44 of the UK’s 282 crematoria and are the only single company who can claim to have national coverage. Many locations will have local monopolies, as there are understandably stringent planning restrictions for the building of new crematoria.

 

These two points combine to put Dignity in a enviable strategic position.

 

Dignity can safely charge high cremation fees, and increase them each year, knowing that they will still be able to ‘guarantee’ this particular disbursement to their funeral plan customers.

 

Their competition, however, has to take a gamble.

 

On the one hand, increasing cremation fees force Dignity’s competitors to raise their ‘cremation contribution’ to ensure customers do not face a shortfall.

 

Yet, on the other hand, every pound they increase the contribution by raises the total amount the customer pays and therefore makes them more expensive compared to Dignity.

 

Dignity’s competition are in a pretty weak position here.

 

They either have to keep the disbursement contribution low and risk customers’ facing a shortfall…or, they have to increase the disbursement contribution and lose the customer to Dignity!

 

A third question…how can plan companies both compete fairly and avoid disbursement shortfalls, when one of their competitors has a vested interest in high disbursement fees?

Mr Daley responded by saying that price of services in the crematoria sector is a separate debate and that the important thing for prepaid plan customers is that they understand the costs and what their plan will cover before they buy the plan.

 

Picking on the little guy

 

In the section titled ‘Regulatory Breaches,’ the author again makes a valid observation. He points out that Safe Hands only show customers a total price on their product pages and that this puts them in breach of their association rules to provide customers with an itemised price list.

 

Pretty reasonable in my mind, and here’s how the author puts it: “The NFFD requires members to provide “all customers with an itemised price list, and to display this price list in a prominent place at all times.” Safe Hands simply shows headline prices on its product pages…An ‘itemised’ price list would show all costs, including administration fees and commission payments. These should be clearly separated from the headline cost. This is not what Safe Hands is supplying.”

 

Unfortunately however, the author has once again found a good point but then not provided anywhere near the full picture. You see, the NFFD is the youngest and smallest of the funeral trade associations. It is only a few years old and has only a few hundred members.

 

The most important two are the NAFD and SAIF. The NAFD traces its roots back to 1898, SAIF to 1989. Both have thousands of members. Both have a seat at the table in talks with government. Together they cover at least 80% of the funeral trade. I cannot imagine the author simply did not find them.

 

Although NAFD and SAIF are clearly in a different league to NFFD, they do have one area where are all three united. Can you guess what that its?

 

That’s right! They all have a Code of Conduct for members to abide to!

 

And, lo and behold, both have rules that tell their members to give customers an itemised price list. You can see their rules here and here.

Why, therefore does the author not make exactly the same point about Dignity (NAFD member), Co-op (NAFD member) and Golden Charter (whose stakeholders are SAIFCharter members), none of whom provide customers with itemised quotes on their product pages either?

 

It astonishes me that the author has gone out of his way to make a somewhat labyrinthine observation about one particular provider, but then failed to follow it through with anything approaching proper rigour and fairness when it comes to applying the same measure to the financial backer of his report.

 

And so, my final question is…Based on the same measure you used for Safe Hands, do you also agree Dignity, Co-op and Golden Charter are in breach of their trade association’s terms?

Mr Daley explained that the objective here had been to compare each business against their regulatory body and to identify rules breaches. In this case, it meant most providers were counted as falling under their plan regulator (the FPA) as opposed to their trade body association. Given that Safe Hands are not a member of the FPA, Mr Daley measured them against the code of their association body, the NFFD.

Previous ArticleNext Article

3 Comments

  1. Golden Charter is not owned by SAIF. It’s stakeholders are SAIFCHARTER members.

    A small but significant point!!

  2. I’m afraid that the fashion of death is but a mere reflection of the fashion of life – with nowadays political correctness and moral indignation disguising themselves as moral fibre. The latter died a long time ago. A few of us may work towards its resurrection in the hope that honesty and service will be highly regarded and properly rewarded once more. However, at the moment, when articles like the one commissioned appear, it feels like pushing water uphill. Well done on a well written critique.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CMA Report Calls for Price Transparency 0

Many of our regular readers will know by now that the CMA’s interim report landed late last week.

It’s clear from the contents that the government have validated what we’ve all been saying on behalf of families and independent funeral directors for the last few years. Specifically that:

  • The large chains have preyed on bereaved families with excessive price hikes in both funeral director and crematorium fees, as well as failing to provide clarity of ownership.
  • The NAFD has failed consumers, specifically that it has ‘fallen short’ and may have been ‘detrimental to competition’. Particularly that it has taken a position on websites like Beyond that’s ‘ambiguous at best’ and that it risks ‘distorting the market’ by its actions.

We’re delighted that hardworking independent funeral directors who publish their pricing online are going to be rewarded by the CMA, while those who deliberately make their prices difficult to discover are taken to task.

We’ll be doing our part, too. We’ll be supporting all the independent funeral directors signed up to our service so that they can be sure they’re meeting any recommendations from the CMA on comparable price transparency, simply by being on our website. We’ve also got a bundle of free services coming for our partners in the New Year.

If you’re not yet signed up with us, but you’d like to join the thousands of funeral directors on our site who are doing their bit towards price transparency in this industry, why not make an account today? We’d love to have you with us.

There are no monthly fees, and our funeral finance, free wills and estate administration services are there to help you offer the families to help complete, well-rounded support. Simply give us a call on 0800 044 9454 and we’ll get you set up in a matter of minutes, or build your free business profile here.

Beyond ‘Let’s Talk About Death’ Campaign Wins Drum Award 0

Beyond win Drum Out of Home Awards

Season’s greetings!

Celebrations are underway at the Beyond office this week, as we’ve been given an early Christmas present: a prestigious marketing award!

Our summer ‘Let’s Talk About Death’ campaign has won the Drum Creative Out of Home Award in the ‘Viral’ category, with the judges praising our success in driving a conversation about death against the odds.

Let’s talk about death…

Released mid-July, our ‘Let’s Talk About Death’ campaign used a little black humour to break through the silence that surrounds anything death-related. You can check out all of the ads here.

Rejected by TFL, the ‘Let’s Talk About Death’ campaign found new life on social media. The ‘banned’ ads were then quickly picked up by press across the world. We appeared in print, on TV and on the radio, sparking an energetic debate about whether and how we should talk about funeral services.

As we’ve said before, we couldn’t be more delighted with the results of this campaign. We strongly believe that to drive positive change in this industry – whether that be price transparency, or a better approach to after life services overall – we as a society need to be talking about death.

This campaign achieved that. And, as an added bonus, thousands of people have created their will online with us for free, raising several hundred thousand pounds for charity through legacy gifts.

Beyond win Drum Out of Home Award 2018Our CEO, Ian Strang, has this to say:

“When something is taboo, as with death, it creates an environment where bad actors can operate. And our fear of engaging on the subject – creating that shared code of silence – allows predators to rip us off. We pay too much for funerals, funeral plans and wills because we don’t feel able to shop around.

“Following the controversy, we were overwhelmed by the support we received from the public and this award gives a further stamp of approval from the advertising industry to our campaign.”

Thank you for your support

As gratifying as awards are, the most rewarding outcome from this campaign has been the support we’ve received both from those in the industry and the general public.

We’ve heard from independent funeral directors, who appreciated that only by breaking the silence around funerals could we advocate for those in this industry who offer the best value and service to their customers.

We’ve also heard from non-profits – those who campaign for the same fairness and transparency we aim to provide.

And we’ve heard from bereaved people themselves, who stood up for us and fought for their right to know that services like ours exist. This support has meant the world to us.

In the end, 76% of those who saw our ads agreed that they didn’t deserve to be hidden away: that a conversation about death is a conversation worth having. To all those people, thank you. And let’s keep that conversation going.