‘Internationally Accredited’ Pet Cremation Operator Can’t Authenticate Remains & Accreditor Has No Complaints Process

When Massey University’s Companion Animal Hospital recommended a specific cremation provider for Harry, they were initiating a clinical and ethical chain of custody. They vouched for a provider that markets itself under the shield of international accreditation.
However, as documented in my core investigation, Are These Harry’s Ashes? Or Aren’t They? that chain of custody didn't just break; it vanished.
The response from Gavin and Lyn Shepherd of Pet Farewells has been a study in shifting narratives, beginning with an initial phone demand for a "disposal fee" because they were "told I didn't want Harry back," followed by a sudden reversal claiming the ashes were "tucked up safely on (the) table", and culminating in a refusal to provide any records or tracking (as required by their "accrediting" body, or even any authentication by way of the remnants of the solid gold cross Harry wore - claiming, against all laws of physics, that the metal simply "melt(ed) and seep(ed) into the hearth, bedding and the bones".
According to Maggie Edwards, Senior Adviser at Consumer New Zealand, this is a straightforward Fair Trading Act and Consumer Guarantees Act issue where services must be provided with reasonable care and skill. If a consumer feels they are being misled about the remains being returned (Readers: Please do see the email exchange with Lyn and Gavin Shepherd, reproduced here), Edwards notes the matter can be lodged with the Commerce Commission on the grounds of misleading conduct. (I still intend to do so.)
Edwards further identified that while Pet Farewells promotes its membership in the International Association of Pet Cemeteries & Crematories (IAOPCC), there appears to be a clear breach of Point 8 of their Code of Ethics, which mandates that members maintain accurate and up-to-date burial and cremation records available for client inspection.
What the International Membership Promises
To understand the weight of this apparent breach, one must look at what the IAOPCC tells the public they should expect from a member.
According to their own website, choosing a member means that pet owner has specifically selected a provider committed to:
- "Strict Adherence to Ethics and Standards: Members follow a comprehensive Code of Ethics and Standards of Business Practices established by the IAOPCC.
- "Full Disclosure and Tracking: Members provide clear, documented information about their pet identification and tracking procedures throughout the aftercare process."
- "Honesty and Accountability: Members are prohibited from misrepresenting services or engaging in fraudulent or deceptive practices.
- "Compassionate, High-Quality Care: Services are delivered with dignity, respect, and the utmost care for both the pet and the family."
Yet my experience - as their customer and the owner of my beloved Harry - was very, very different.
According to the United States-based IAOPCC's website, its accreditation program is a "globally recognised and industry-approved initiative," outlining established procedures for each step of the pet cremation process.
This includes guidelines for transportation, varying types of pet cremation, record-keeping, and facility standards. It also openly recognises that "in an industry with minimal regulatory oversight beyond environmental and business licensing, pet aftercare has largely been self-regulated." Concerning, much?
It further claims that their program "provides pet owners and the industry with a reliable assurance of integrity in pet aftercare practices, offering protection through its comprehensive standards and inspection process."
Yet as the Consumer New Zealand advisor noted: "Unfortunately, it does not seem that the IAOPCC has a complaints process regarding its members and any breaches of the Code of Ethics.
"However, Pet Farewells should be able to show you Harry's burial and cremation records."
Except that they won't . . . and maybe that's because they can't.
In my email below, you will see that I am inquiring of the Executive Director, Donna Shugart-Bethune, as to when the IAOPCC last inspected Gavin and Lyn Shepherds' Pet Farewells Hamilton or Wellington facilities, or any other pet crematoria their associated NZ Pet Cremate Limited entity owns and operates under the claim of IAOPCC accreditation.
READERS: The below email was sent on Saturday, February 7, with no acknowledgement or response received as of Thursday, February 12. Below this initial email, therefore, you will see the brief follow-up email I sent on February 12.
_____________
To: Donna Shugart-Bethune, Executive Director, IAOPCC
Subject: FORMAL NOTICE of Ethical Breach & Inquiry Sought: Member - Pet Farewells (NZ Pet Cremate Limited)
Dear Ms Shugart-Bethune
I am an investigative and consumer affairs journalist in New Zealand currently publishing a dossier regarding a catastrophic failure of chain-of-custody protocols involving and/or between Pet Farewells (NZ Pet Cremate Limited), a registered member of your association, and Massey University's Companion Animal Hospital.
I write to you not only in the capacity of Editor-in-Chief of The Customer & The Constituent NZ, but also as the Executive Director of the International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Ethics (IIIVE), which is launching globally this coming week.
Please read the full account of the matter to date, along with the email exchanges with Pet Farewells directors and shareholders Gavin and Lyn Shepherd here.
Following consultation with Consumer New Zealand (a national consumer advisory organisation), I specifically draw your attention to a documented failure by your member to adhere to (at least) Point 8 of your International Association of Pet Cemeteries & Crematories' (IAOPCC) Code of Ethics, regarding the supposed requirement of your "accredited" members to maintain tracking and records.
Despite formal requests, Pet Farewells has been unable and/or unwilling to provide the "accurate and up-to-date records" required to verify the chain of custody for my dog, Harry. Furthermore, they have provided scientific claims regarding the disappearance of gold during cremation that contradict established metallurgical facts.
As the leadership of the IAOPCC, and as owner of your own multi-generational pet funeral business, you understand that your accreditation is used by members to project a level of trust that justifies premium fees. If a member cannot produce a "Point 8" audit trail, and also communicates with an owner in a manner that breaches your requirement of them that they treat pet owners with "dignity, respect, and the utmost care", then that trust is illusory.
Accordingly, I am seeking your official position on whether such a failure warrants an investigation into their status.
Additionally, I am specifically requesting confirmation of the date on which your association last inspected the facilities operated by the Shepherds and NZ Pet Cremate Limited - as your website would indicate is part of your accreditation process.
Meantime, my team at The Customer & The Constituent and IIIVE are currently finalising an approximately 60-page forensic filing for the New Zealand Privacy Commissioner and a further set of filings for the Veterinary Council of New Zealand regarding the conduct of Massey University in the matter of the patient, Harry Kelly – who happens to be my own dog, Harry Kelly.
The treatment of Harry (both pre-death and in the posthumous context) will form the foundational global case study for IIIVE.
A critical pillar both of the filings documentation and of the continuing investigation, along with the case study, is the Chain of Custody regarding the remains of Harry.
As you will read here, I have ground to a screeching halt with my communications and endeavours to authenticate the remains your member (Pet Farewells of Hamilton, New Zealand) holds and claims to be Harry’s: https://www.thecustomer.co.nz/are-these-harrys-ashes-or-arent-they
As you might imagine this has been, and continues to be, a matter of great distress for me, personally.
Meantime, obtaining an understanding and reporting on the international pet cremation industry is of considerable interest to my colleagues and I, given my own (if I may speak plainly) utterly horrendous experience regarding Harry’s remains, the unknown manner of his state and usage prior to and upon collection by Pet Farewells, who issued the instructions to “dispose” of his remains, and the stubborn refusal of the Pet Farewells staff and management to offer the very information that your own code of conduct mandates that members must provide to those entrusting their beloved pets’ bodies to them.
While my preliminary commentary to date has been published on The Customer & The Constituent only, with the Media, Investigations, and Education, sections of IIIVE (iiive.org) being added this coming week as we prepare for a much earlier launch than originally intended, the “after care” industry is firmly in our sights for detailed reportage.
Harry’s treatment, and mine as his loving “pet parent”, will be central to that reportage (both on The Customer & The Constituent and on IIIVE), and to the broader case study and investigative and educational materials that will be an important component thereof.
To that end, I would ask – in accordance with the International Association Of Pet Cemeteries & Crematories’ (IAOPCC) Code of Ethics and Professional Standards, as can be found at the IAOPCC’s website: https://www.iaopc.com/page/code-of-ethics - for your intervention in this matter to ensure the following:
- Verification of Remains: That Pet Farewells produces the verifiable furnace logs, digital timestamps, and individual cremation certification associated with patient Harry Kelly.
- Property Hold: That you issue an immediate directive to the facility to preserve all physical remains and related digital/physical records. Given the very justifiable "credible doubt" I have documented regarding the chain of custody, these must be treated as evidence in an active malfeasance investigation.
- Transparency: That the facility finally answers the specific questions regarding who issued the "disposal" instructions and why the mandatory standards of your organisation’s membership requirements have been, to date, disregarded in this case.
I would prefer to report on a "gold standard" response from the IAOPCC in resolving this failure of its member, rather than documenting a systemic lack of oversight within the international pet cremation sector. To that end, I sincerely hope you will investigate your accredited member, to determine if they indeed meet your standards for continued accreditation.
And, of course, I now look to you to answer truthfully and transparently, in addition to the above questions, the central matter of whether or not the ashes in the “bag” really are those of my beloved Harry. If they are not, I would rather have a frank and truthful answer.
Further, was Harry, in fact, used as a post-mortem specimen by Massey viz a viz the slip of the tongue by the Pet Farewells staff member that Harry had been “collected with the other post-mortems” and viz a viz her email that states he was received “in a bag” (which was not how Massey staff told me they had despatched him at all) . . . and who issued the directive to “dispose” of his ashes because apparently, I “didn’t want Harry back”?
These are burning questions that not only I want the answers to, but which the readers of my 34 articles-to-date Special Harry Kelly Expose Series (a majority of whom are also loving pet parents) are keen to read your answers to.
If I may continue speaking frankly, it is my firm contention that you would be better served by retracting your organisation's accreditation of this member, rather than letting it soil the global reputation of the pet cremation industry. In the meantime, however, if there is any chance of getting Harry''s actual and true ashes back (along with honest and factual answers to the above questions), I urge you to facilitate this for me.
Most urgently of all, I look forward to your confirmation that a Preservation Notice has been communicated by you to your Pet Farewells member as a non-negotiable requirement.
Sincerely
Jordan Kelly
Executive Director, The International Institute for Improvement in Veterinary Standards (IIIVE)
Editor-in-Chief, The Customer & The Constituent NZ
From: editor@consumeraffairswriter.com <editor@consumeraffairswriter.com>
Sent: Thursday, 12 February 2026 2:07 am
To: 'info@iaopc.com' <info@iaopc.com>
Subject: FOLLOW UP: Request for Facilitation – Email of Saturday, Feb 7
Dear Ms Shugart-Bethune
I am writing to reiterate my request for your assistance in facilitating answers to the specific questions I raised in my email to you last Saturday.
As previously stated, I require the IAOPCC to step in and ensure that the transparency standards your organisation purports to uphold are actually met by your member here in New Zealand.
I am still waiting for the definitive answers regarding the handling of my dog, Harry, and I am again requesting your urgent facilitation in this matter.
I look forward to your immediate confirmation that you have contacted the member and that the requested information is forthcoming.
Sincerely
Jordan Kelly
The Question of Accountability
This inquiry reveals a striking symmetry in the pet cremation industry.
Locally, we have a husband-and-wife team in the Shepherds; while internationally, the oversight is governed by the Shugart family. We are observing a global commercial network where the regulators and the operators would appear to be the same collective.
The IAOPCC's "Code of Ethics" represents a promise to the public, yet as Edwards noted, there appears to be no transparent complaints process for consumers when those ethics are breached. This creates a "regulatory hall of mirrors" where accreditation may function as a marketing shield for providers, but offers no functional protection for the grieving families who pay for it.
If the IAOPCC is to be seen as a legitimate regulatory body rather than a commercial guild, they must now decide if their standards are enforceable. A failure to hold their members to (at the very minimum) the "Point 8" requirement for record-keeping is not just a lapse in professionalism; it is a systemic failure of the very consumer guarantees they claim to uphold.
I, and The Customer & the Constituent team and its readers, await their response to see if these international standards have any substance, or if they are simply a premium-fee business model insulated from actual accountability.
Other News, Reviews & Commentary









