Where a will appoints an executor, they have the greatest entitlement to apply for the Grant of Probate to administer the estate of the deceased.  However, if the executor is unwilling or unable to act, then they may reserve their right to become an executor.  There may be many reasons for this; they lost touch with the deceased or they have moved, perhaps to a different country. They may themselves by unwell or incapacitated, or they may have doubts as to the validity of the will.

If the executor’s reluctance is only temporary in nature, then they may ‘reserve’ their right rather than ‘renouncing’ it entirely.  In order to do this the other executors applying for the grant must give that person notice that they are applying for the grant of probate without them.  The Probate Registry will then make a note on the Grant that the person wishing to reserve their executorship has done so.

This means that, in future, if that person wishes to ‘revive’ their executorship and act in the administration of the estate, they may do so.   If the executor wants to relinquish completely their right to a grant of probate, they may make a renunciation provided they have not intermeddled in the estate, that is carried out any actions which an executor would perform in the course of administering the estate.  Unlike having power reserved, a renunciation of the right to probate is usually irrevocable and absolute. Therefore, the right may not be revived in all but the most exceptional circumstances.

If you have any questions regarding obtaining a grant of probate, do not hesitate to contact our Probate Department on 0207 703 5034 or by emailing laura@meaby.co.uk.

 

If you’re selling a property, you will be asked to complete a 16 page questionnaire called a Property Infomation Form (also called Form TA6).  Section 4 asks if any building works or window replacement works have been carried out at the property and asks to provide copies of any necessary planning permissions and building regulation approvals.  Section 12 asks if any boiler installation works or electrical works have been carried out to the property and asks for the building regulation certificates for these works.

In order to avoid delays in a transaction, it is a good idea to keep any planning and building regulation documents in a safe place so that you can provide these to your conveyancer at the beginning of a transaction.  If you don’t provide these, the buyer’s solicitors are going to ask for these once they have reviewed the contract papers.

If you do not hold these documents, you could ask the contractor who carried out the works to provide these.  Some contractors are more helpful than others in responding once the works have been completed and they have been paid, and some contractors go out of business.  If you cannot obtain these from the contractor, then there are other ways to obtain the documents.

In respect of planning permissions, you can contact your local authority’s planning department to obtain copies.  Most Council’s websites have a planning database where you can search for planning applications and download copies of planning permissions.  Copies of building regulation approvals issued by the Council are not as readily available online so you may have to contact the Council’s Building Control Department directly for these.

If planning permission and/or building regulation approval was not obtained for building works, then the buyer’s solicitors are likely to ask for an indemnity policy to cover the buyer for costs and loss in value of the property in the event that the local authority later seek enforcement action in respect of planning and/or building regulation consents not being obtained.  Indemnity policies are issued on the basis that contact has not been made with the local authority regarding the works, so if you think that consents were not obtained for works carried out at the property, you would need to avoid contacting the Council regarding the works if you wanted to leave open the option of being able to offer an indemnity policy.  Another option is to obtain retrospective consent, but this could be time-consuming, it could delay the sale and if the Council do not grant consent, you would not be able to offer an indemnity policy.

Building regulation approval for installations such as gas boilers, electrical works and glazing are usually dealt with by other registration bodies.

For window and glazed door replacement works, building regulation certificates are usually issued by FENSA.  You can check their website – https://www.fensa.org.uk/fensa-certificate – to check if they have a FENSA Certificate registered against the property address and you can order a copy from their website.

For building regulation certificates for electrical works, you can visit the website www. checkmynotification.com to search for and order a certificate.

Gas Safe usually issues building regulation certificates for gas boiler installations.  You can visit their website at https://www.gassaferegister.co.uk/help-and-advice/gas-safety-certificates-records/building-regulations-certificate/ to search for and order a certificate.

If you are planning to sell your property, it is a good idea to take some time to check that you have your paperwork in order and to order any planning and/or building regulation documents that you do not hold as this with save time later on.

If you are planning to sell or buy a property, please contact Brian Craig at bc@meaby.co.uk or 020 7703 5034 for timely advice.

The authority of ‘The Governing Body of Tywyn Primary School -v- Mr M Aplin UKEAT/0298/17/LA demonstrates that sexual orientation discrimination is still unfortunately an issue in 2019.

The facts

The Claimant Mr Aplin was a 42-year-old primary school Head Teacher.  He was openly gay and met two 17-year-old males on ‘Grindr’ which is a dating app for gay men.   After two meetings the three of them had sex.

This came to the attention of the police and then the Local Authority’s Professional Abuse Strategy team which concluded that no criminal offence had been committed and that no child protection issues arose.

Notwithstanding this, the school implemented disciplinary proceedings which resulted in Mr Aplin’s summary dismissal.    They found that ‘his conduct, although not a breach of the criminal law, his perception of it and his inability to recognise any impact upon his role as Head Teacher and the reputation of the school and himself as its figurehead, so call into question his judgment as to undermine the necessary trust and confidence in him and make it untenable for him to continue as headteacher.’

Mr Aplin appealed the decision on the basis there were numerous procedural errors which amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence in the investigation and the subsequent disciplinary hearing.   Various documents, for example minutes and police material that were relied on as part of the investigation were not supplied to Mr Aplin.

It is worth noting that by appealing, it kept Mr Aplin’s contract alive, however there were further procedural errors with the appeal process which led him to resign claiming constructive dismissal in addition to sexual orientation discrimination.

The Employment Tribunal decision

At first instance the Employment Tribunal after a five-day hearing,  found that Mr Aplin had affirmed his employment contract by bringing his appeal and that his claim of constructive dismissal succeeded.   The Employment Tribunal also found that the way that he had been treated overall gave rise to a reverse burden of proof and that in relation to the investigating officer, that burden had not been satisfied and that he had been discriminated against by the investigating officer because he was gay.

The School appealed against the decision.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal decision

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the school’s appeal for two reasons:-

  1. In relation to constructive dismissal it held that the Employment Tribunal was wrong to find that in bringing the appeal it gave rise to affirmation of Mr Aplin’s employment contract.   It held that instead he was giving his employer the opportunity to remedy the procedural defects and breaches.
  2. On the sexual orientation discrimination claim, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that there were sufficient facts from which an inference of sexual orientation discrimination could be drawn, and the reverse burden of proof was justified. It found that the investigating officer had not given an adequate alternative explanation for his conduct which was viewed as discriminatory on the basis of Mr Aplin’s sexual orientation.

If you have any concerns about LBGTQ+ discrimination in the workplace or if as an employer you would like to update any anti-discrimination policies and procedures then contact Steven Eckett, Partner and Head of Employment on 020 7703 5034 or by e-mail seckett@meaby.co.uk

Before an Employment Tribunal (“ET”) can accept a claim in respect of, for example, unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment, or a combination of actions, the Prospective Claimant must have gone through the Early Conciliation (“EC”) process.

This has been a mandatory requirement since its introduction on 6 April 2014. This process is, in effect, a last chance for the parties to attempt to resolve their dispute before formal litigation can be commence, by the submission of a claim to the ET. The EC process is subject to time limitations, but these will be addressed in a separate article.

The EC process can be summarised in this way:

  • The Prospective Claimant submits an EC form, usually on-line, which includes basic information such as the claim(s) the Prospective Claimant is contemplating making and the identity and contact details of the parties, to ACAS (“The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service”), who oversee the EC process. The form is intentionally simple to complete and therefore does not necessarily require the input of a solicitor.
  • An assigned ACAS conciliator contacts the Prospective Claimant within a few days of the submission of the EC application in order to go through the contents of the EC form that was originally submitted. ACAS then contact the entity which the Prospective Claimant is making the claim against – known as the Prospective Respondent, and is usually the Prospective Claimant’s current or previous employer.
  • Following such contact, the Prospective Respondent is aware of the existence of the possibility of a claim(s), what it relates to, and the basic reasons why the Prospective Claimant considers that they have a valid claim.
  • The Prospective Respondent informs the conciliator either that it is prepared to try to settle the claim by negotiation, or that it does not (e.g. it considers that the claim is without merit, or that it wishes to defend any claim that is issued).
  • The conciliator communicates this to the Prospective Claimant. If the Prospective Respondent does not wish to try to settle the claim, the conciliator issues an EC Certificate to the Prospective Claimant. This issuance of the EC certificate proves that the parties have complied with the mandatory EC process but that it was unsuccessful. The Prospective Claimant is now free to submit a claim to the ET.
  • If the Prospective Respondent does wish to try to settle the claim by negotiation, it will communicate with the Prospective Claimant by way of the conciliator. It is this part of the process which is the subject of this piece.

Difference between a “Mediator” and a “Conciliator”

“Mediation” can be defined as an attempt to settle a legal dispute through the active (my italics) participation of a third party (the mediator) who works to find points of agreement and make those in conflict agree on a fair result.

“Conciliation” is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process whereby the parties in dispute use a conciliator, who meets with the parties both separately and together in an attempt to resolve their differences.

The distinction between these 2 definitions is more than semantic, and lies between the differing levels of proactivity of this impartial third party. The disputing parties’ expectation is that the mediator’s knowledge and experience allows it to understand the industry practices and legal issues which relate to the claim, and so advise the parties on the strengths and weaknesses of their positions. In such circumstances, the experience and conduct of the mediator will play a significant part in trying to resolve the dispute.

It is a common perception by Prospective Claimants that the ACAS conciliator will actively attempt to mediate during EC in such a manner. Our experience is that this is unusual, and that the conciliator confines themselves to passing on one party’s position to the other without advising either on the merits of the claim(s) or the prospects of success of that position. In effect, they are messengers who will neither offer legal advice on either party’s position or try to unlock a deadlocked negotiation other than by their existence in the process.  ACAS are entirely impartial in this respect.

This less-proactive stance often surprises parties unfamiliar with the process, who typically expect the conciliator to advise them on ways to settle the matter to avoid it going further. A frequent complaint from Prospective Claimants is that the conciliator does not dispense legal advice in the same way as a solicitor during the process. While correct, such a complaint misunderstands the role and remit of the conciliator. Their remit is to provide a mechanism to resolve a dispute but does not extend to advising the parties on the merits of their claim or their defence. Additionally, as the conciliators are generally not legally trained, they are not legally permitted to provide such advice.

The EC mechanism was introduced to reduce the number of claims progressing to the ET, and the statistics show that it has been largely successful in that respect. The number of ET claims that have been issued since the introduction of EC has fallen significantly. However, the constraints of the conciliators’ remit limits how successful they can be, and ironically, often leads to Prospective Claimants, who expected legal advice from conciliators during the EC process, instructing a solicitor instead to provide such advice.

 

Meaby & Co are lawyers experienced in all employment issues. Should you require advice on the EC process, or indeed any aspect of employment law, please contact Chris Marshall on 0207 703 5034 or cmarshall@meaby.co.uk.

 

Blogs

“Capital will always go where it is welcome and stay where it’s well treated. Capital is not just money. It’s also talent and ideas.  They, too will go where they’re welcome and stay where they are well treated.”

Walter Wriston

 

It is a truth universally accepted that mention the term ‘non-dom’ and a great percentage of people will express disgust – whether this be in the form of a gentle ‘tut tut’ or in the use of a more forceful expletive.  Nor can we blame the popular media for its policy of ‘bashing’ the non-dom as this is only a reflection of the general consensus.

So why do we hate non-doms and is it not time to review not only the general opinion of this class of individual but the way it is taxed?  If not, we are in danger of losing a powerful class of person whose contribution to the UK economy is not only useful but essential in promoting growth and economic stability.

What is a non-dom?

A ‘non-dom’, abbreviation of ‘non-domiciled’, as the name suggests is a person who is resident but not domiciled in the UK.  The difference between residence and domicile in brief being the former is where one resides the latter is the country with which one has the greatest connection.  One is born with a domicile of origin normally that of one’s parents.  The rules as to the various forms of residence and domicile are too long for this article but are ably set out in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs Handbook.

Taxation of non-doms

Interestingly ask the average person on the street, or the man on the Clapham omnibus as the legal profession prefer, when the whole non-domicile regime began the majority will answer to the tune of back in the ‘80s, under Margaret Thatcher.  This is laughable, the non-domicile tax regime has been in place since 1799.

The non-domicile regime traditionally allowed those with ‘non-dom’ status to live and work in Britain without being subject to UK taxation on any income or gains earned outside of the UK.

Successive governments, most viciously under the Blair/Brown years, have overhauled the non-dom tax regime so that it is now merely a shadow of its former glory.

The introduction of the Annual Charge on non-doms opting to retain non-dom status and use the remittance basis for taxation, meaning that they would only pay UK tax on overseas income remitted to the UK already proved the growing hostility towards non-doms.

As it stands currently, for non-doms who have been resident for seven out of the previous nine years the Annual Charge is £30,000, for those that have been resident for at least 12 out of the previous fourteen years the charge increases to £60,000.

The final blow however which came in the changes made in April 2017, saw the removal of the right of non-doms that have been resident in the UK for more than fifteen out of the previous twenty years to be considered non-dom, instead they will become ‘deemed domiciled’ in the UK.

‘So-what?’

Despite changes in government the policy of bash the ‘non-dom’ shows no sign of relenting, to which your average chap on the Clapham omnibus might easily reply ‘so what’.  This however is a serious mistake.  The non-dom regime helped make the UK into a place where foreigners wanted to do business which in turn played a key role in shaping the success of the UK not least the rise of the City.

One only has to examine the list of primary donors to many of the UK’s institutions, galleries, museums and even universities to see the enormous value of non-doms.

Another mis-conception that must be corrected is that non-doms pay no tax.  This is simply not true, in 2015/16, non-doms contributed just under £6.6billion to the UK Treasury.  Not a figure to be sneezed at.  This figure only includes income tax, it does not consider for example the VAT raised from money they and their employees spent in shops, restaurants and on other services in the UK.

Brexit and Beyond

Far be it for a mere mortal to criticise the government but Theresa May has been given the perfect opportunity to build a solid post Brexit economy however to date her government has shown no signs in abating the vitriolic tax treatment of the non-dom.  This is foolhardy and short sighted.  Bashing the non-doms may get a likeable headline the day after the Budget but long term it will cause serious harm to the UK’s competitivity and ability to attract inward investment.  It appears that the government still has not learnt what Walter Wriston made clear, if you create a hostile environment capital will go elsewhere.  Hong Kong and Singapore are nipping at the UK’s heels, not forgetting New York.  If they can’t invest without penalty in the UK investors will move and this is a huge loss to everyone not just the wealthy.

If you would like any further information on Private Wealth  then contact Olivia Cooper at Meaby & Co LLP on 0207 703 5034 or ocooper@meaby.co.uk.

 

 

 

The recent authority in Seahorse Maritime Limited -v- Nautilus International 2018, the Court of Appeal considered the definition of a single establishment and also the territorial scope on the duty of collective consultation.   This is a mandatory requirement under Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULR(C )A)

Under these Regulations employers are required to inform and consult where they propose to make 20 or more employees redundant at one establishment within a period of 90 days.

This is an interesting case because it dealt with the issue of UK jurisdiction and also whether Seahorse was one establishment or whether the individual ships were.  These points were appealed successfully.

The Facts of the case

The Appellant – Seahorse employed a crew to work on a fleet of oil rig support ships that were operated by another entity called Sealion.   Most of these ships operated outside UK territorial waters.

Unfortunately, there was a downturn in the oil industry back in 2015 resulting in insufficient charters for many of these ships.  Consequently, various  redundancies were made from the workforce, but no collective consultation was implemented or took place.

The Trade Union Nautilus International representing the redundant employees issued employment tribunal proceedings seeking protective awards for a failure to collectively consult under TULR(C )A which would have resulted in awards of up to 13 weeks’ pay per employee.

Seahorse defended the claims by asserting that there were no jurisdictional ground to bring these claims as the employees were not UK based.  They also argued that each ship was a separate establishment and that therefore the threshold of 20 redundancies at any one establishment was had not been met, notwithstanding that there were more than 20 employees that were made redundant across the workforce.

The outcome

Both the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal both upheld the employees claims and held that the ships were not separate establishments and that their employees had a sufficiently strong connection to the UK and consequently Section 188 of TULR(C )A applied.

Interestingly it was also held that each ship was not a distinct unit of Seahorse’s undertaking and that the employees were ‘international commuters.  This was on the basis that the employment contracts were stated to be governed by English law combined with the fact that the employer used a British registered company to manage its employees and it was held that their duties started as soon as they left home and included travelling to the ships.

The Court of Appeal reversed the decision and held that the employees were assigned to particular individual ships which were self-contained operating units which in turn were each an individual establishment.  It was also held that there was not a significant connection with the Great Britain.

In its findings the Court of Appeal noted that the obligation to consult collectively under Section 188 sat at collective level and that it was necessary to focus on the one common feature which defined the Group – which was the establishment.  In this case it was the individual ships.

Accordingly, it was held that each ship was a separate establishment and that there was insufficient connection to Great Britain to trigger any obligation under Section 188 TULR(C)A.

The important points to gauge from the case are that ships can constitute separate establishments for the purpose of Section 188 similarly to a chain of retail shops, as long as the employees are assigned to a specific ship.    It is also clear from the authority that it is the connection that the establishment has with Great Britain as opposed to the connection any individual may have.

Seahorse Maritime Limited -v- Nautilus International 2018 EWCA Civ 2789

If you have any questions relating to individual or collective redundancies affecting your business then contact Steven Eckett, Partner and Head of Employment at Meaby & Co LLP   seckett@meaby.co.uk or 020 7703 5034

 

The last few weeks has seen the UK seemingly veer from one crisis to another while the Prime Minister has forlornly tried to negotiate a Brexit deal acceptable to both the EU and the Houses of Parliament. The latest vote, just yesterday, saw the House of Commons vote against a no-deal Brexit by an alarmingly small majority of just 4 votes. Leaving the EU on WTO terms is however still a possibility, if the EU refuse to extend the 29th of March deadline.

Understandably, anyone considering buying or selling at present has one eye firmly on the ongoing Brexit negotiations. But should Brexit affect your decision?

While the continuing and unshakeable concern is that a no-deal Brexit will cause a financial crisis akin to that of 2008, this is not necessarily a bad thing for buyers and property investors. If property prices crash, perhaps it is the time to buy – the old adage tells us to buy low and sell high.

Likewise, if you are selling and buying in the same area, and particularly if you are upsizing, a possible property market crash may not be the worst time to move – as long as you are not in negative equity, it may be possible to find a bigger home much cheaper than it would otherwise have been, while smaller properties will generally not lose as much value in a market slump as the larger properties.

Traditionally, the new homes market is the first to suffer in times of financial crisis, but this Government has, to their credit, invested in new homes. Initiatives such as the Help To Buy scheme have made buying a brand new property far more viable than it might have been in previous times of crisis.

While I certainly can’t predict the future, and while my personal opinion is that we would have been far better off remaining in the EU, I do feel that there are always going to be opportunities for the smart investor, and for those brave enough to step into the market when all others hesitate. If I can’t stop Brexit, then I might as well try and embrace the possibilities that arise from it. Who’s with me?

If you are looking to move house or buy another property, please contact Andy Roscoe at Meaby & Co for advice: andy@meaby.co.uk or call 020 7703 5034.

Notwithstanding the amount of Parliamentary time that Brexit has taken up, it is good that the increase in statutory rates was published in good time at the end of last year to enable employers to plan ahead. These increases are in line with the Consumer Prices Index.

It is important that employers of all sizes are aware of the statutory increases that come into effect on 7 April 2019 (the first Sunday in April) to ensure that their affected employees receive the correct payments.

Here is a snapshot of the main increases that are scheduled to come into effect: –

Statutory Maternity Pay
This is scheduled to increase from £145.18 to £148.68. The first six weeks’ payments are payable at 90% of the employees weekly pay. Do remember that if the employee’s weekly earnings are less than the statutory rate then payments should be at 90% of their average weekly earnings. Statutory Maternity Pay is payable for a maximum of 39 weeks.

Statutory Paternity Pay and Statutory Shared Parental Pay
These payments are also scheduled to increase from £145.18 to £148.68 or 90% 0f the employee’s average weekly earnings if this figure is less than the statutory rate. Payments of Statutory Paternity Pay are for up to two weeks immediately following the birth (even if premature) or at any time within the following eight weeks. If you qualify for Paternity leave you can choose whether to take one week of two weeks’ leave. The two weeks’ paternity leave must be taken in one block and cannot be split. Shared Parental pay is payable for 39 weeks in total and as with statutory maternity pay the first six weeks is payable at 90% of salary.

Statutory Adoption Pay
The rate of Statutory Adoption Pay is also scheduled to increase from £145.18 to £148.68 or 90% of average weekly earnings is less than this sum. The first six weeks pay once again is payable at 90% of the employee’s average weekly pay.

Statutory Sick Pay
The rate of Statutory Sick Pay is scheduled to increase from £92.05 to £94.25 from 6 April 2019 and the maximum entitlement is 28 weeks in any linked period.

National Minimum/Living Wage
It is also important to remember that the National Living Wage payable to those aged 25 and over will increase by 4.9% from 1 April 2019 from £7.83 per hour to £8.21 per hour. This is in line with the Low Pay Commissions recommendations and will benefit around 2.4 million workers across the UK.
The following National Minimum Wage increases will also come into effect on 1 April 2017 for those aged below the age of 25.

Those aged 21 -24 – the hourly rate will increase from £7.38 to £7.70

Those aged 18 – 20 – the hourly rate will increase from £5.90 to £6.15

Those aged 16 – 17 – the hourly rate will increase from £4.20 to £4.35

Apprentices will also benefit and will see an increase in the hourly rate from £3.70 to £3.90.

Statutory Redundancy Pay
The statutory redundancy payment caps will increase from £508 to £525 from 6 April 2019 in accordance with the Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order 2019.

For the sake of completeness, the lower earnings limit will increase from £116 to £118 in April 2019.
It is also worth pointing out that some employees might have greater contractual entitlements to these payments and so it is worth reviewing any internal policies to ensure that they are up to date. Usually the first slice of any enhanced contractual payments tend to be the statutory proportion but the detail as ever is in the wording and meaning of any written policies.

Our recommendation for employers of all sizes is to ensure that they are aware of these increases. Otherwise there is a risk that they could inadvertently expose themselves to the risk of employment tribunal claims for unlawful deduction of wages/breach of contract or are fined and/or named and shamed by HMRC as a consequence of failing to pay the correct National Living/Minimum wage rates.

If you have any concerns about these statutory increases or any written policies then contact Steven Eckett, Partner and Head of Employment at Meaby & Co LLP seckett@meaby.co.uk or 020 7703 5034.

So you have decided to buy and have reserved your dream new build home at your chosen Development. Congratulations!!

Now it is time to think about the legal part and to decide quickly on instructing a solicitor. Whilst the Developer can make some recommendations of expert lawyers the decision is ultimately yours. We may be one of the preferred solicitors for several Developers, however it is important to note that we do not work for them and that every Developer has their own lawyers acting on their behalf on the sale to you. We will always act in your best interest which is paramount to ensure you are receiving the best legal advice, guidance and customer service to see you through the process.

We are preferred New Build Lawyers as we can ensure that not only will you receive an excellent service to ensure a more efficient transaction, you will be using a solicitor that has extensive knowledge of new build transactions and ensure that you meet the exchange deadline set by the Developer. This is a very important stage of the buying transaction and part of the deal agreed between you and the Developer when you reserve.

So when is the right time to instruct your solicitor? As the Developer sets a tight deadline for exchange of contracts, it is important to instruct us as early as possible following reservation of your property as there are a number of legal documents and procedures that must be completed when buying a property. The faster the paperwork can be handled the more quickly you’ll exchange and be one step closer to your dream home.

Meaby and Co have a specialist New Build Department headed by two very experienced and qualified Solicitors – Prabjoth Bassan and Senay Talat. Prabjoth and Senay have bought their passion of new build to their department and have National contacts which has seen their careers flourish over the years. Their dedication and excitement for helping buyers purchase their new home is evident in their work ethic and commitment to each client – they will be there for you along each step of the way and guide you through the whole process using their experiences and expertise – you will definitely be in trusted secure hands!

If you are looking to buy a new home or just want a chat about the process of buying a new build home contact Prabjoth or Senay at Meaby & Co for timely advice at pbassan@meaby.co.uk / stalat@meaby.co.uk or call 0207 703 5034.

You should consider the following:-

  1. Register the death
  2. Appoint undertakers
  3. The type of funeral service you require
  4. If you would like a remembrance book/record of attendance to be made and ask a friend or family to assist with this (NB. it is easier to do this at the beginning of the service rather than the end)
  5. What type of flowers you would like (if any) and contact a florist. The church can usually recommend someone they use.
  6. Where to invite guests for the refreshments
  7. Placing an announcement in the local and/or national paper, if so, which one(s). Make sure that there is sufficient time for the announcement to appear prior to the day of the service.  Usually the notice to the public will have basic information i.e. name, age, date of death, and you may consider a short message and an indication as to whether flowers, if any, are to go to the undertakers or whether donations to a particular charity should be made via the undertaker etc.
  8. Making arrangements for friends and/or relatives not in frequent contact with the deceased to be informed by phone, word of mouth or advertisements in the local press of the news of the date and location of the funeral.
  9. Transport to and from the church/crematorium/

It is prudent to check 48 hours prior to the burial/cremation that all the arrangements have been put into place so that everything goes smoothly at this difficult time.