RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Lancashire => Topic started by: Parmesan on Saturday 24 April 10 14:06 BST (UK)
-
This authority is one of the worst for genealogists!
£15 for a grave search and now the BMD certificates have gone up to £9, they are charging another £1 'admin fee'
Robbers! >:(
-
I thinks Salford council have been laughing at us all including there own residents for year over the price of burial records request.
Migky ;)
-
I don't see how they can legally charge an Admin Fee unless of course that is for orders by credit/debit card. They have no legal right to charge an Admin fee if you send for the cert by cheque or postal order.
As for the Grave search I have no problem with that fee. Records Offices will charge more than that for a search of their records and why should we get this information free when they have to use their staff to do the work.
Rob
-
£23 for grave research at Rochdale Cemetery. :o
http://www.rochdale.gov.uk/community_and_living/births,_deaths,_marriages_and/burial_records.aspx
-
I think may be it is £1 for P&P maybe?
It is ok you saying you don't mind paying £15 for a search, but that is £15 every search. From my own experience, that does not guarantee you a result. You could be paying the £15 just for the plot location. We use to moan about Manchester council burial site but that changed it policy and is far better these days and they still manage to make money out of it.Think they need to take a leaf out of tamesides book. 100% first rate service like a few other here in the northwest, but Salford and Rochdale i feel are on the money grabbing trail. i suppose some one has to pay for the Salford MP's expenses?
Migky ;)
-
£35 for 1 in Ellesemere Shropshire. That does include a photo of the grave site.
Finding out who to contact is a nightmare though. Us Lancastrians are lucky where it concerns records and facilities compared to some other parts of the country
-
Mr Migky,
I dont see how they can charge for postage either. No one else does that I use. As for the burial grounds, my own council don't charge anything either. That said you say there could be no results for your 15 pound fee well that is the case also for archival research by the staff there.
I think we would all wan their to be a standard around the country but as I was informed when I questioned my MP about this, it is up to each local council to set the fees for their services. I guess the only way to overcome this is to get the local councilors onside
Rob
-
In addition to my earlier posting #3 I should say that Rochdale Local Studies actually provided a copy of the grave record for me for under £2 including postage, so thankfully I didn't need to contact the expensive cemetery service.
Gillg
-
Not only is it NOT for p&p (you have to include an sae) it is £1 admin fee for EACH certificate :o
"5 REMITTANCE ENCLOSED (POSTAL APPLICATIONS ONLY)
Please note: Salford charge the standard fee of £9.00, plus a £1.00 administration fee for each certificate ordered.
UK: applications should enclose an SAE. Postal order or cheque made payable to : City of Salford for £ 10.00"
Just wondering too, the only cert I ordered from Salford has been a death certificate which was newly handwritten copy, not a photocopy of the original one - most disappointing.
-
Parmesan,
Guy may be best placed to advise here but I think they are breaking the law in that case
Rob
-
Thanks Rob, I will check it out.
-
I assume Salford are relying on the Local Government Act 2003 to make a discretionary cherge.
However the Local Government Act 2003 section 93 states -
"93 Power to charge for discretionary services
(1) Subject to the following provisions, a best value authority may charge a person for providing a service to him if—
(a) the authority is authorised, but not required, by an enactment to provide the service to him, and
(b) he has agreed to its provision.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the authority—
(a) has power apart from this section to charge for the provision of the service, or
(b) is expressly prohibited from charging for the provision of the service. "
All Registrars and Superintendant Registrars have a statutory duty (under the Marriage Act, 1949 and the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1953) to provide a requested certificate therefore the discrectionary power to raise and additiona charge does not apply.
Cheers
Guy
-
I have emailed them asking for specific details as to why they make this charge when as Guy states the have a statutory duty to provide them
When I get a reply I will copy it here and if I dont receive a reply I will go higher
ROb
-
I can well believe that of Salford Council ... as I live in the area .... where / who are you researching?
-
I am and am not. I am doing some research in the area for a client but right now I don't need the Salford Cert but if I do I will be sending £9 with a letter stating if they dont send the cert I will be taking legal action lol
-
Thanks Guy and Rob too! :)
Nice one Rob, do let me know if you get a response.
Cal 241 I am researching a family originally from Staffordshire. There is a marriage certificate I want to order.
-
Ok the reply I have received from salford council
Dear Sir
The City of Salford took the decision a few years ago to charge an administration fee for processing all certificate applications made by post or by telephone/online with payment being made with a credit/debit card. This is in line with neighbouring authorities who also charge administration fees.
As the turn around for issuing certificates at Salford is very high, usually within 24 hours, we often receive praise for the service we provide and therefore the administration fee is set to cover all costs including postage.
You can however, apply in person for a 2 day service, and just pay the statutory fee of £9.00, and therefore, as it is made clear that the additional £1.00 is an administration fee, and not the statutory fee for a certificate, it is not in breach of any law.
Regards
Salford Register Office
They are taking the ****
-
So it is £1 for P&P then ?
Migky ;)
-
quote: "therefore the administration fee is set to cover all costs including postage."
How can it be postage when you have to enclose an SAE? ::)
'Taking the ****' is what Salford excel at!
edit: btw I've stopped getting notification on any post I make how can I reverse it please? !
-
Parmesan,
I noted that point as well so when I have to send for a cert from them I will send them just £9 and wait the extra day. I also noted on their website if you go into the office and pay an extra £5 they will produce a cert in 30 minutes. Well I go into doncaster pay the set fee and get one in 5 minutes although occasionally they do say we are busy can you wait or can we post it to you. Grrr Lancastrians wanting something for nothing lol
As for your problem that occurred for me last night but seems to have been rectified today so maybe a quick message to a mod may answer your question
Rob
-
Hi Rob, thanks. I think I will also send a query to them, noting Guy's quote from the Act.
Yes mine seems to be working today also.
-
i suppose some one has to pay for the Salford MP's expenses?
I used to work for an Labour Alderman of Salford Council (at the time when there such things) and he was so rich he could have bought up most of Salford. Not sure he claimed expenses though, we never heard of them in the early 1960s.
By the way, I've mentioned it before, so I will again. My grandfather died in Aberdeen. I had guessed the name of the cemetery, thanks to my aunt who gave me an approximation of the name. I sent an e-mail to the council asking if they would be able to do a search for me and what the cost would be. They replied saying there was no cost and that they had found him, they also said that if I sent them my full address they would photocopy the maps of the cemetery, showing the whole cemetery and the part he where he was buried. This is what happened and the whole cost - NIL.
That's what I call good service.
-
Lizzie, That is great service and one I commend but I am also not against paying for searches of burial records that took place in municipal cemetaries. I think this is just certain councils wanting to make money and then not look so bad at the end of the year when they dont show a defecit
Rob
-
I think I will also send a query to them, noting Guy's quote from the Act.
Having worked with legislation for many years (including in Local Government) I don't think that its a good idea to quote from Acts unless you either have Legal advice from a professional or legal training yourself as it can backfire. I haven't read the actual Act but suspect that whilst it states the fee for a certificate is 9 GBP (from a local register office) I doubt whether it states that the office is obliged to post it. In other words, we've issued the certificate and it's available for collection. If you wish us to post it then that's a separate administrative function not covered by the Legislation, requiring staff to process through the mailing system. Many organisations also document all ingoing and outgoing mail.
Salford City Council is now operating a guaranteed 2/3 day delivery with the post with a different postal service provider. It is now advisable not to send your own stamped addressed envelope as you may receive your certificates quicker, by letting us address your envelope
Salford now ask you not to send a SAE
Andy
-
Ah! okay - lucky for me the email I JUST tried to send failed! ;D
Just a note on the response you received from them though. I don't get this paragraph
"As the turn around for issuing certificates at Salford is very high, usually within 24 hours, we often receive praise for the service we provide and therefore the administration fee is set to cover all costs including postage"
The fact they get praised for their service is totally irrelevant to your query!
-
Andy,
And as my email from them confirms the extra pound is for administration purposes which they are not allowed to charge subject to the acts quoted. They say on their website that you must send a stamped addressed envelope so it cannot be for postage costs. Likewise they also state that if you don't send the extra pound in your certificate will be delayed again suggesting that this is not for postage. The fact is they have a statutory obligation to provide certificates on request for a fee and that fee is laid down by the registrar general for England and Wales. The Superintendent registrar cannot then add monies to this price as it is a statutory price.
I agree that quoting law without some training and the full knowledge of the act is risky but one I am prepared to take but then I have some training in the law. I have used that knowledge to gain concessions from archives across the country when they start quoting copyright law on parish registers etc.
Rob
-
So basically they are doing what lots of business do, charging extra for a quicker service. So I suppose you pays your money and takes your choice. ;D
-
So basically they are doing what lots of business do, charging extra for a quicker service. S
I don't see that. They don't say 'send us an extra quid and we'll speed our service up'
-
Ok had another reply back and the 1 pound admin charge is apparently only for credit/debit card purchases and knowing the fees involved for this service I cannot blame them for wanting a pound. It is a little higher than corner shops charge but understandable.
I told them to look at their website and ammend it because this is not how it reads
Rob
-
That's great Rob, well done!
If you try to order from Lancashire BMD the form you get states £1 admin for postal applications. As noted in my previous post and copied here
"5 REMITTANCE ENCLOSED (POSTAL APPLICATIONS ONLY)
Please note: Salford charge the standard fee of £9.00, plus a £1.00 administration fee for each certificate ordered.
UK: applications should enclose an SAE. Postal order or cheque made payable to : City of Salford for £ 10.00"
-
Ok I have just mailed the UKBMD team and informed them what I have been told
Rob
-
You're a marvel, thank you! :)
I thought those forms downloaded automatically from each authority! <clueless>
-
Hi
What next? The set fee s £9 for producing a certificate. Asfar asI cn see, the task is basically administrative anyway! Admitably, wedidusedto add an sae up here, before. But we'd been led to believe by various bodies it was cheeper to pay online - or they tried! -,now everyone wants extra!
Goodluck!
Emms
-
Okay,
I am probably going to annoy some of you now so sorry.
I am a Salford resident and I do not see any thing wrong in asking you all to cough up a bit extra so that facilities in Salford can be improved for the likes of me :) Salford needs all the dosh it can get - have any of you seen the City?
Seriously though the registrars job is to primarily register BMDs and they are kept pretty busy with births (we have the second highest teenage pregnancy rates for a start), we also have a high mortality rate.
We need our certs for our hobby, not exactly a priority. The BMDs have been indexed fairly well by Salford so people can always try and get a copy from the microfilm at the Local History Library or ask people such as me to look for them when we visit.
The staff at our centre are great and friendly and I have found that they have gone the extra mile to help. Please don't knock them, they do their best!
Midmum
-
Midmum,
No one is questioning the work they do just the legalities behind what they are doing. Thank you for the offer of looking things up for us however as I am a professional genealogist lookups are not suitable for me nor would it be fair for me to ask you to do something for free then charge my client nor would it be professional of me to have you do that work and then tell the client I did it. Also when I search registers I may pick up on something that a lookup would miss so with all due respect thanks but no thanks.
The fact of the matter is Salford registrars have a duty to provide the certificates as is laid down in law and no matter whether you have the highest or lowest teenage births in the country that doesn't change. Maybe the schools and parents should do more to educate their kids that having sex is a serious business and they should always use protection. That though is an altogether different subject.
Rob
-
I agree with Rob.
Yes, I have seen Salford, I used to live in Greater Manchester and it has undergone a lot of regeneration over the years and is much improved. :)
-
Just one question
How come none of the burial/cemetery records have been put online by the local councils for free searches in cemeteries.
That is what is done in New Zealand (Lucky us :) ), not all councils yet, however they are getting there, some sites are really good with photos etc.
If i was still in the Uk i think i would be spending a long time in the Family History areas of the libraries........Yes we still have to get certificates for death etc from the national office (archives) however details from the cemetery sites can be printed off for your records free.
Claire
-
rotosis,
Doncaster were going to do that but were told after spending 1000's of man hours typing it up they couldn't as it would breach the Data Protection Act. So whilst the transcriptions are not complete they do have the vast majority now saved for ease of searching
Rob
-
Hi Rob
I was under the impression that the Data Protection Act related to the living not deceased, i can understand not including the owner of the plot but wouldn't have thought that an index of the occupants was an issue. Manchester has an online index
Andy
-
Andy,
I agree however I can only quote what I was told.
Rob
-
This authority is one of the worst for genealogists!
£15 for a grave search and now the BMD certificates have gone up to £9, they are charging another £1 'admin fee'
Robbers! >:(
Try a London Council - I need to locate my Gt Gf grave in the Lambeth area, so I have 3 possible cemeteries, and they charge £32 per search :'(
-
Hi Mancsman
Justa thugh - Have you got the burial details from achurch first?
I was lucky. I looked at the London regsters on A**** and not onlygot the church but a reference to the cemetery they used, for a couple of mine. Still expensive from there, but we'll see.
Sorry, a bit off topic!
Best wishes
Emms
-
edit: btw I've stopped getting notification on any post I make how can I reverse it please? !
Not sure if you have reste yourself, but I had the same problem and LizzieW helped me with this-
Go to Profile at the top of the page, click on Notifications and e-mail, on the left hand side and make sure the second box "Receive reply notification only for the first unread reply" is unticked. I usually have the box unticked, but when I checked it appeared to have become ticked. I don't know if there was a glitch with Rootschat.
On the point in question - if the charge is for using a credit card it should be a % of the charge. 1pound for a 9pound charge is a bit steep to be a fee to cover c/c fees!
-
Mosher,
Most shops around where I live charge up to a pound for purchaes under £10 and up to 50p for purchases under £5 so I disagree it is a huge amount. Every time you use a debit or credit card the company using the POS equipment from the bank is charged. The cost is dependent on sales (the more you have the cheaper it becomes). On average the bank want 10k for the priviliidge of offering this to customers. Ticket sales companies will charge up to £5 booking fees for 40 pound tickets so I dont see there is much of a difference.
Rob
-
Ok, must be different there. Here it is usually a % of the charge. Tickets are different - that is a charge for agents fees, handling etc but general sales it is a % (usually around 4%). Not all places charge it tho. Some will charge a higher % for Amex.
-
Mosher,
Are you not in the UK?
Rob
-
No I am an Aussie. ;D My dad's family are all from Lancashire tho, mainly around the Wigan area. His Mum & Dad's families both emigrated early 1900's. Strange that they met and married here in Oz when they came from the same area's. Maybe the families knew each other.
I must admit it is fascinating looking into the UK side of it, from an Aussie point of view.
-
Mosher,
That explains the percentage comment :)
Rob
-
said it before and will say it again - what was the point of the freedom of information act!!! ::)
surprising myself by saying this but St Helens has a fab burial records online site to search
the new bmd certificate fee is disgusting
GRO handling of the situation was appalling:
- 3 certificates sent in error, the "checking" details didn't match (had to return them and got only a partial refund)
- 2 certificates not sent because of 1) birth date and 2) middle name error but parents names matched exactly (another way of them making money and was again only sent a partial refund)
we should take to the streets and protest at the unfair treatment of family historians ;)
re: admin staff very busy to deal with the back log of certificate requests for family history - enough of us out there I imagine willing to volunteer to work at the register office and handle the family history requests of others - I know I would - might handle them with a bit more empathy.
ok rant over! lol
;D
-
said it before and will say it again - what was the point of the freedom of information act!!! ::)
The point was to make information available not to make information free.
surprising myself by saying this but St Helens has a fab burial records online site to search
the new bmd certificate fee is disgusting
Why by law government departments have to charge the sum it costs to supply the information requested. The costs of supplying a certificate of bm or d has been worked out and the fee set.
That is the fee the GRO (Identity & Passport Service) has to charge they have no say in the matter.
GRO handling of the situation was appalling:
- 3 certificates sent in error, the "checking" details didn't match (had to return them and got only a partial refund)
- 2 certificates not sent because of 1) birth date and 2) middle name error but parents names matched exactly (another way of them making money and was again only sent a partial refund)
It seems you are not happy when the certificates are sent if the details do not all tally and you are not happy if the certificates are withheld because the details do not tally.
If you are not happy with the refund complain under the Sale of Goods Act. If the goods supplied did not match the description or were otherwise unfit for purpose you are entitled to a full refund.
Don't moan on a forum; claim your legal rights.
we should take to the streets and protest at the unfair treatment of family historians ;)
Some of us take action some of us moan about it but take no action. The choice is yours.
re: admin staff very busy to deal with the back log of certificate requests for family history - enough of us out there I imagine willing to volunteer to work at the register office and handle the family history requests of others - I know I would - might handle them with a bit more empathy.
ok rant over! lol
;D
Do you have the correct raining and qualifications or experience to handle the requests?
Could you do it accurately and efficiently or would staff be tied up trying to teach you the ropes?
May I suggest if you have not been on a tour of Southport try to go on the next available tour. You could be surprised at just how much time, care and checking goes into the production of a certificate.
Cheers
Guy
-
"The point was to make information available not to make information free."
Sadly the information still doesn't appear to becoming easily available!
"It seems you are not happy when the certificates are sent if the details do not all tally and you are not happy if the certificates are withheld because the details do not tally."
When asking for a death of the wife of "Mr. X" and the certificate sent is a spinster - that is sloppy handling!
Equally when asking for the death of the wife "of Mr. Y" and the certificate is of the wife of "Mr. Z" - again very sloppy!
When asking for two births with a specific ref and naming same father and mother with same maiden surname - I would have expected a call or email asking despite the details (ie middle name / day and month of birth) not matching, did I still want the full copy. (The surname isn't a common one like Smith or Jones!)
I have complained and sent two emails already and as yet, I still have had no reply.
I have had the most support and help from the Wrexham Reg Office (when requesting JONES certificates) and only had to wait about 15mins when visiting St Helens Reg Office after requesting a certificate.
I understand staff must be very busy with real life events happening daily but I do feel, in some circumstances, we (the family historians) are considered a nuisance.
I was not aware of visits arranged to the GRO in Southport and would relish the opportunity to find out what happens behind the scenes of the GRO or any local Reg Office for that matter. When I have enquired in the past, I have been informed that that is just not possible.
I am not moaning for the sake of moaning, I am sharing my experience with other people on the forum, I thought that was what a forum was all about.
Hence the smilies!
;D
-
Ok had another reply back and the 1 pound admin charge is apparently only for credit/debit card purchases and knowing the fees involved for this service I cannot blame them for wanting a pound. It is a little higher than corner shops charge but understandable.
I told them to look at their website and ammend it because this is not how it reads
Rob
No change to the website or UKBMB/Lancashire BMD application form, still quoting £10 including £1 admin charge.
"The cost of all standard birth, death and marriage certificates is £10.00 (inclusive of the administration fee) when applying for certificates via post, online or with a credit/ debit card. We cannot issue a certificate until we have received payment. Cheques or postal orders should be made payable to 'Salford City Council'."
via post, online or with a credit/ debit card what other way is there? ???
-
we are oop North and suspect they are trying to say that they moving away from 'pigeon post' ;)
Cal 8)
-
I am oop North, I prefer pigeon post if it saves me a quid ;D
-
via post, online or with a credit/ debit card what other way is there?
Perhaps there is no admin fee if paying in person by cash or cheque
Andy
-
By by law government departments have to charge the sum it costs to supply the information requested. The costs of supplying a certificate of bm or d has been worked out and the fee set.
On the contrary, Ive just read an article in the magazine FAMILY TREE in which a quote from the GRO says that 'an element of staffing and other set up costs related to the 2010/11 budget for the new digitisation and indexing project (D&I) has been factored into the cost of providing GRO certificate services'. This is supposed to be the 'replacement ' project to digitise the GRO records and provide online public access after the last attempt failed. i.e we are paying for their mistakes and paying for a service that isnt accessible yet.
It seems you are not happy when the certificates are sent if the details do not all tally and you are not happy if the certificates are withheld because the details do not tally.
Quite right too, five duds :o hes paying enough for them to get things correct surely. Some might think they were doing it on purpose, to make more money.
-
I contacted lancsbmd and forwarded them a copy of the emails I had with Salford Council and they are to contact them to clarify the situation with the intention of updating their website. Salford council did say to me in the email that the one pound admin charge was to cover credit and debit card sales only and I suggested they needed to make this clear on their website.
Rob
-
I've had a very different experience with Salford City Council...Some time ago...after several failed attempts to get the right Birth Certificate for my relative..name of Jones.. ::)..I emailed them to explain the difficulty I was having which was compounded by the varying ages across the census records giving a date range with a variance of ten years.
They emailed me back asking for Ref. Nos of likely matches and they would help me to find the right certificate...I had the right one identified within a few hours I and was able to send for it...it came by return of post.
I would happily pay an extra pound for that kind of service as it saves time, money and a heck of a lot of frustration.
Carol
-
You wont be able to do that anymore though will you? They aren't allowed to do those checks for you now.
-
You wont be able to do that anymore though will you? They aren't allowed to do those checks for you now.
Of course they are allowed to do checks.
What they have never been allowed to do was legally retain part of the fee if the checks did not tally.
Cheers
Guy
-
The paper form linked to the BMD sites states
"You are strongly recommended to add any qualifying information you may have in order to help the registrar issue the correct certificate."
I think it is only GRO that no longer have a check facility.
-
I am oop North, I prefer pigeon post if it saves me a quid ;D
couldn't agree more lol :D
-
Parmesan local offices want more info so that they can be sure they send you the right one. They will check it as a matter of course
-
Parmesan local offices want more info so that they can be sure they send you the right one. They will check it as a matter of course
Well that's good and only right when you think about it. Can't think why I used the GRO before! (except maybe for neat A4 certs! ;D)
-
I assume Salford are relying on the Local Government Act 2003 to make a discretionary cherge.
However the Local Government Act 2003 section 93 states -
"93 Power to charge for discretionary services
(1) Subject to the following provisions, a best value authority may charge a person for providing a service to him if—
(a) the authority is authorised, but not required, by an enactment to provide the service to him, and
(b) he has agreed to its provision.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the authority—
(a) has power apart from this section to charge for the provision of the service, or
(b) is expressly prohibited from charging for the provision of the service. "
All Registrars and Superintendant Registrars have a statutory duty (under the Marriage Act, 1949 and the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1953) to provide a requested certificate therefore the discrectionary power to raise and additiona charge does not apply.
Cheers
Guy
I've come to this thread late having been on holiday.
Looking, though, at the Marriage Act, 1949 and the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1953 it appears that the relevant wording (in several sections) defining the statutory duty is along the lines of "Any person shall be entitled at any time when the register office is required to be open for the transaction of public business to search the said indexes, and to have a certified copy of any entry in the said registers under the hand of the superintendent registrar, on payment by that person to the superintendent registrar of the following fees respectively....................."
i.e. if you visit an office in person and do your own search you can have a cert for the fee stated and the statutory duty is discharged.
The Acts appear to be silent as regards searching by a member of the registrar's staff and the receipt of requests for certs other than in person. That being the case, in order to legally provide such a service than a power (not a statutory duty) must exist under other legislation. In the case of local authorities that is quite likely to be the Local Government Act 2003 - but, there having been so much legislation burdening local authorities in the last couple of decades, I haven't checked that.
Graham
-
Graham,
The fees chargeable by the local offices are fixed by the registrar general. They also have a duty to make a search of their records for the said certificate and cannot add any amount of money for this purpose. As I have said previously they are making this charge for debit and credit card sales which I don't see a problem with. They also state this is for postage of the cert because as they no longer use Royal Mail it is unlikely that a SAE would get back into the system. Now for me that is wrong, and they cannot dictate that I don't use my own first class stamp. By contracting another company other than Royal Mail they are basically saying we will only return your certs by second class post.
With regards to postal applications I would argue that this is covered by the act in so much as a lot of local offices will now not accept personal applications due to the demand caused by genealogists, however I do agree this needs enacting in law.
Rob
-
... and their website and forms need updating!
-
Graham,
The fees chargeable by the local offices are fixed by the registrar general. They also have a duty to make a search of their records for the said certificate and cannot add any amount of money for this purpose. As I have said previously they are making this charge for debit and credit card sales which I don't see a problem with. They also state this is for postage of the cert because as they no longer use Royal Mail it is unlikely that a SAE would get back into the system. Now for me that is wrong, and they cannot dictate that I don't use my own first class stamp. By contracting another company other than Royal Mail they are basically saying we will only return your certs by second class post.
With regards to postal applications I would argue that this is covered by the act in so much as a lot of local offices will now not accept personal applications due to the demand caused by genealogists, however I do agree this needs enacting in law.
Rob
Rob,
Yes, the charge for provision of a certificate is fixed as is the charge for a General Search (though there appears, from my reading of the Acts, to be no charge for a Particular Search).
As I read the Acts, though, the sections dealing with searches relate to searches by members of the public in person. I can't see any part of either Act which imposes on registrars "a duty to make a search of their records for the said certificate". Please point me to the relevant section(s) if I have missed them.
In the absence of a Duty then, as per my previous post, any search must come under a Power (or it is ultra vires), a charge may be made and any conditions (relating for example to postage) may be defined by them. This latter isn't unique to provision of certificates but to any activities undertaken by local and national government departments which are covered by Powers rather than Statutory Duties.
Graham
-
You are reading too much into the wording of the Act Graham.
The Superintendent Registrar has a statutory duty to not only allow searches to be made in his/her indexes but he/she also has a statutory duty to supply a copy of any entry in the register.
Not any specified entry or any resultant entry but any entry.
There is no requirement on the person asking for a certified copy of any entry to supply a reference.
The Marriage Act, 1949 puts it this way-
“64.- (2) Any person shall be entitled at all reasonable hours to search the said indexes, and to have a certified copy of any entry in the said marriage register books under the hand of the superintendent registrar, on payment to the superintendent registrar of the following fee, that is to say :-
(a) for every general search, the sum of five shillings :
(b) for every particular search, the sum of one shilling : and
(c) for every certified copy, the sum of two shillings and sixpence.”
The Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1953. states-
“31.- (2) Any person shall be entitled at any time when the register office is required to be open for the transaction of public business to search the said indexes, and to have a certified copy of any entry in the said registers under the hand of the superintendent register, on payment by that person to the of the superintendent registrar of the following fees respectively, that is to say-…”
Note the ability of a Superintendent Registrar to charge a fee for a Particular Search of the indexes of the marriage register was repealed by the Statutory Instrument 1968 No. 1242 The Registration of Births, Deaths, Marriages (Fees) Order 1968.
The other fees as I am sure you are aware have of course been increased almost annually.
Cheers
Guy
-
I agree with what you say about the statutory duties Guy but think the operative word is allow rather than undertake. I've been using the same two sections to inform my earlier answers (albeit in the latest updated version on the Statute Law site).
I'm sure the wording "Any person shall be entitled .....to search .....and to have a certified copy of any entry" puts the onus on the searcher to undertake the search and to identify the entry which he wants a copy of.
That is in line with other requests for public information (e.g. S8(c) of FoIA and S7(3) of DPA) which require sufficient information to be provided to enable identification of the information sought. So I agree, there is no requirement on the person asking for a certified copy of any entry to supply a reference but there is a requirement for them to supply sufficient alternative information to identify the entry.
If that is not the case then individuals would be able to make requests which required registrars to search the whole of the index - and parliament isn't actually daft enough to allow that ;)
I can't see that either Act actually imposes a duty on a register to undertake a search so any undertaken would be under a different power, not either of the two specific Acts, and thus charging could not be controlled by those Acts.
Graham
P.S. Totally off topic, will we see you at Sunderland on 5th June?
-
Certainly Graham, but the information supplied could be as little as
Please supply a certified copy of the register entry for the birth of Fred Blogs, Newcastle upon Tyne, 1901.
There is no duty for the researcher to search the register.
He/she could be working on a family legend.
Not at Sunderland but will be at Newcastle & York see
http://anguline.co.uk/fairs.htm
Cheers
Guy
-
We're close enough not to argue semantics I think :)
We're at York and Newcastle as well as Sunderland (pity we won't see you there). See http://www.jigrah.co.uk/fairs.htm
Graham
-
NB:
"Thank you for your enquiry.
Birth Certificate : **********
I am sorry that you have experienced difficulties in obtaining a certificate, quoting a GRO index reference, for a birth certificate registered within the last 50 years or a death certificate of a child aged under 16 years registered within the last 50 years.
The General Register Office has procedures concerning applications for certificates which fall into these categories which are to safeguard individual's identity and eliminate the risk of certificates being obtained with fraudulent intent.
Online requests for these certificates must include the correct date of birth or death and full parents' names. If you do not know this information, you could contact our call centre on 0845 603 7788 Monday to Friday 8 am to 8 pm and Saturday 9 am to 4 pm. If you can give a valid reason for requiring the certificate, the call centre operator may be able to authorise your request for the certificate. Payment is by credit/debit card and costs £8.50 for an application quoting a GRO index reference.
Please see Our Website for more information. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Registeringlifeevents/DG_175444
Regards
Public Relations Unit
Certificate Services"
I got her brother's birth certificate born 3 years previous which just fell outside the "50 year rule" - what a joke!
::)
-
I don't really understand the last post and what the joke is - unless it is thought that measures aimed at prevention of identity theft and other frauds are a laughing matter.
Graham
-
I don't really understand the last post and what the joke is - unless it is thought that measures aimed at prevention of identity theft and other frauds are a laughing matter.
Graham
Quite honestly Graham those measure are a joke.
All a person needs to do to circumvent the ridiculous office policy is to phone up.
The GRO are obligated to provide anyone in the world with a certified copy of any register entry they wish to purchase (with the exception of stillbirths).
They have no legal right to ask what use the person is going to make with that certified copy and have no legal way of preventing the person getting it.
The office policy is simply paying lip service to ID theft and fraud.
Cheers
Guy
-
This has turned into a very educational thread. I'm learning a lot!
-
I understand what you are saying Guy and the acceptance of phone requests is certainly a weak link. Having worked on the other side (so to speak) I would expect that the procedures in place are not paying lip service but an attempt to deal with the real problem - that successive governments have not got to grips with the matter (probably because ministers and MPs don't actually know what the existing law allows).
Graham
-
I understand what you are saying Guy and the acceptance of phone requests is certainly a weak link. Having worked on the other side (so to speak) I would expect that the procedures in place are not paying lip service but an attempt to deal with the real problem - that successive governments have not got to grips with the matter (probably because ministers and MPs don't actually know what the existing law allows).
Graham
The last Government and ministers knew exactly what the the existing law allows. In fact not only did they support the law that anyone in the world could apply for any certificate they attempted to make access easier.
To answer the specific point about anyone purchasing certificates the answer given here (10 March 2000) http://tinyurl.com/2wnlqjd may be of interest.
Possible one of the most promising comments (for family historians) came earlier in a question about the White paper "Civil Registration : A Vital Change" on the 1st February 1990 when Mr Freeman stated -
"Finally, the White Paper proposes a distinction between historic registration records—those at least 75 years old—and more recent ones. Although access to all records will be maintained through a right to buy non-official copies of them, there will be new rules governing the purchase of certified copies of recent records for use for official purposes. These will help to curb an abuse which has arisen. By contrast, it is intended that information from the older registration records will be entirely within the public domain. It will be possible to buy either certified or non-official copies of certificates of events which occurred 75 years ago or longer, and it is also proposed that an agency outside the Government should hold copies of these records and provide the browsing facilities which are sought by genealogists, researchers and historians."
Cheers
Guy
-
Thanks Guy.
I'm still not convinced that MPs & ministers actually know what they are talking about. I recall an MP for a constituency not a million miles away from here trying to justify not publicising MP's expenses and quoting the DPA as covering companies - an MP who was one of the main supporters of the related change to FoIA in 2008 :)
The system is certainly a mess but, at the same time, we have to remember that civil registration was not put in place to help family historians. That is merely a by-product. Whilst I'm sure very few people would hate to see the facility disappear it is a sad fact that the modern world has to combat fraudulent activities which are increasing rather than decreasing.
Certainly, to that extent, measures aimed at prevention of identity theft and other frauds are not a laughing matter.
Graham
-
Thanks Guy.
I'm still not convinced that MPs & ministers actually know what they are talking about. I recall an MP for a constituency not a million miles away from here trying to justify not publicising MP's expenses and quoting the DPA as covering companies - an MP who was one of the main supporters of the related change to FoIA in 2008 :)
The system is certainly a mess but, at the same time, we have to remember that civil registration was not put in place to help family historians. That is merely a by-product. Whilst I'm sure very few people would hate to see the facility disappear it is a sad fact that the modern world has to combat fraudulent activities which are increasing rather than decreasing.
Certainly, to that extent, measures aimed at prevention of identity theft and other frauds are not a laughing matter.
Graham
The thought that civil regististration was not put in place to help family historians is another of those myths often repeated by those who should know better.
Part of the original remit of Civil Registers was to aid family history by making it easier to prove claims of heredity.
Civil registers were not a new idea but a development of parish registers. This may be shown by the introductory paragraph of the 1836 Act for registering Births, Deaths and marriages in England.
“Whereas it is expedient to provide the Means for a complete Register of the Births, Deaths, and Marriages of His Majesty's Subjects in England : And whereas an Act passed in the Fifty-second Year of the Reign of His late Majesty King George the Third, intituled An Act for the better regulating Parish and other Registers of Births, Baptisms, Marriages, and Burials in England, and also an Act passed in the Fourth Year of the Reign of His late Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled An Act for amending the Laws respecting the Solemnization of Marriages in England, are insufficient for the Purpose aforesaid : Be it therefore enacted by the King's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That after the First Day of March in the Year One thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven so much of the said Acts as relates to the Registration of Marriages shall be repealed.”
One of the reasons for keeping Parish Registers was in the words of the 1812 Act
“Whereas the amending the Manner and Form of keeping and of preserving Registers of Baptisms, Marriages, and Burials of His Majesty's Subjects in the several Parishes and Places in England, will greatly facilitate the Proof of Pedigrees of Persons claiming to be entitled to Real or Personal Estates, and be otherwise of great public Benefit and Advantage ;”
Back in 1644 an Ordinance was passed authorising
“and that said book shall be showed, by such as keep the same, to all persons reasonably desiring to search for the birth, baptizing, marriage, or burial of any person therein registered, and to take a copy or procure a certificate thereof.”
As for the ID theft, fraud argument it is a non starter.
Any system that relies on any public record as a part of any form of security is not only too weak to be of any use but it is negligent in the it promotes an false impression of security.
Cheers
Guy
-
I stand corrected Guy, thanks.
Graham
-
Isn't the English language wondrous? If only I could understand it ;D
Guy, you have my jaw on the floor! You certainly know what you are talking about :)
-
finally got a reply to my email, in which I requested a full refund from the birth certificate I applied for, which was just under their "50 year rule"
(The joke being I can apply for someone's birth details, no questions, if they are 51 - surely that cound easily be used for fraud, as those under 50; begs the question why they don't have the "100 year" rule as per census)
"Thank you for your enquiry.
Enquiries or Complaints regarding orders you have placed for birth, death or marriage certificates should now be made online using the form on our website which can be found at www.ips.gov.uk/certcomplaints
If you have further questions about your original enquiry or complaint please now complete the form online and be sure to tick the box " Please tick this box if you have made a previous complaint about this order"
Please supply full identifying details when you complete the form and quote the email address which was used when you placed your order.
If you are enquiring about a certificate you have not received, could you please allow at least 5 working days for delivery if in the UK and 10 working days for addresses Overseas, from the estimated date of despatch before contacting us.
Please note that once you have placed your order online, there is no facility for either cancelling or amending your order.
Please note : No further action will be taken until we receive you enquiry or complaint made online.
Regards
Certificate Services"
Feel like I am being robbed and delayed every step of the way!
:o >:(
-
This whole idea of identity theft is not something new nor will restricting access to items such as certificates decrease or stop this. Certificates for years have always stated not to be used for identification purposes. Even the advent of Identity cards wouldn't stop this. The fact I can search any parish register for information of any person born in the last 50 years who was baptised and then use that information to gain the cert without making a call, shows how daft the GRO are with this rule. As Guy as pointed out this is in fact not something they can legally enforce.
Graham, Have you ever walked into a registry office and asked to search the indexes? Only 4 years ago I did this in Doncaster and was told I had no legal right to but thanks to guys framfield site I had gone armed with the facts and they had to back down, likewise now I would argue with them that they cannot legally charge me to search the said indexes. With regards to ancillary charges for postage and such like, it is my right in a deomcratic country to choose who I have my certificates carried by and therefore Salfords decision to use a private firm to carry their mail should not impact on who I wish to have my certs sent by so long as I include a stamped addressed envelope. If however I choose not to include the latter then I agree that they should be able to charge me for the postage.
Anyway we are probably beating the same drum here but from different angles.
See you at York :)
Rob
-
Graham, Have you ever walked into a registry office and asked to search the indexes? Only 4 years ago I did this in Doncaster and was told I had no legal right to but thanks to guys framfield site I had gone armed with the facts and they had to back down,
Never needed to Rob. As our interests were remote from where we live we used the indexes at the FRC and copies of them on film at local libraries. However, when I was employed by a local authority my work brought me into contact with the registrar attached to that authority. Because of my interest, conversation naturally turned to the subject and she confirmed that the indexes could be searched.
likewise now I would argue with them that they cannot legally charge me to search the said indexes.
I agree in the case of a Particular Search but there is provision for a charge for a General Search - and they can charge if you want them to search on your behalf, just like any pro researcher will :)
With regards to ancillary charges for postage and such like, it is my right in a deomcratic country to choose who I have my certificates carried by and therefore Salfords decision to use a private firm to carry their mail should not impact on who I wish to have my certs sent by so long as I include a stamped addressed envelope. If however I choose not to include the latter then I agree that they should be able to charge me for the postage.
Now there I definitely disagree - just like buying anything mail order we have to abide by the Ts&Cs of the supplier unless a variation is agreed in advance.
Anyway we are probably beating the same drum here but from different angles.
Seems so :)
See you at York :)
All being well - and we will be at Sunderland a fortnight today.
Graham
-
So! I used the Lancashire BMD form and sent to Salford for a marriage certificate enclosing a cheque for £9 and a note saying "further to your correspondences with 'a rootschatter' I believe the £1 admin fee is for credit card sales only"
Well they sent me the certificate with a compliments slip that said 'certificates are £10'
So come on Salford what's going on?
-
Are the indexes at a register office different in any way from what you would find for the same office had they put them on line?
-
Parmesan,
I would contact them again and tell them that they are £9 and not £10 as per the statutory fees laid down in parliament. I am going to contact my MP about this as well :)
Rob
-
Parmesan,
I would contact them again and tell them that they are £9 and not £10 as per the statutory fees laid down in parliament. I am going to contact my MP about this as well
Rob
Wouldn't it be a better option to contact the Registrar General and ask him/her whether Local Register Offices are entitled to charge an additional fee, however named, to cover such things as credit card fees, postal charges/delivery fee, staff costs over and above the Statutory requirement etc? personally I have no objection to paying such amounts within reason.
Andy
-
... personally I have no objection to paying such amounts within reason.
Andy
Me either but they seem to be the only local authority making such a charge - at least of all the ones I am using, and that doesn't sit well with me.
I may take the advice of each of you and contact both authorities.
One has to ask the question, if they can be bothered to put in a compliments slip stating the certificates are indeed £10 why they didn't return my cheque and insist on the correct sum?
-
Me either but they seem to be the only local authority making such a charge - at least of all the ones I am using, and that doesn't sit well with me.
That's one of the points of having some services administered at local, rather than national, level though isn't it? Local authorities decide what is best for their area so there are bound to be differences between them.
I may take the advice of each of you and contact both authorities.
Use FoI. Ask for details of how the fees are made up and the powers/duties under which the fees are levied.
One has to ask the question, if they can be bothered to put in a compliments slip stating the certificates are indeed £10 why they didn't return my cheque and insist on the correct sum?
Because the admin cost involved in doing so would be much more than £1 and, thus, wasteful of public resources.
Graham
-
One has to ask the question, if they can be bothered to put in a compliments slip stating the certificates are indeed £10 why they didn't return my cheque and insist on the correct sum?
Because the admin cost involved in doing so would be much more than £1 and, thus, wasteful of public resources.
Graham
Well I enclosed an sae so the admin cost in sending me the certificate (as they did) or returning my cheque would be the same!
-
One has to ask the question, if they can be bothered to put in a compliments slip stating the certificates are indeed £10 why they didn't return my cheque and insist on the correct sum?
Because the admin cost involved in doing so would be much more than £1 and, thus, wasteful of public resources.
Graham
Well I enclosed an sae so the admin cost in sending me the certificate (as they did) or returning my cheque would be the same!
It all depends on the procedures involved. Many organisations (both public and private) separate cheques from accompanying documentation on receipt as the sooner they are presented the better for cash flow reasons. Because the vast majority of cheque payments produce no need to query/refund there is normally no problem with such a procedure and it is to the organisation's benefit. When it does go awry though, as in this case, the cost of raising a refund request would far outweigh the amount involved so it is simply not worth it.
To make sure, though, why not ask for an explanation when you ask for the other information? :)
Graham
-
Are the indexes at a register office different in any way from what you would find for the same office had they put them on line?
can anyone answer my question?
-
Are the indexes at a register office different in any way from what you would find for the same office had they put them on line?
can anyone answer my question?
The content of indexes at register offices is laid down in legislation. Whether or not indexes for any given office are placed on-line depends on whether the office concerned or any other organisation has put resources into doing so. Content is not constant between all on-line indexes. Some contain more than the legislation requires for indexes at offices. Some may contain less information but I don't know of any which do.
Graham
-
Thanks for the reply, Im just trying to understand why you would go to the trouble to 'demand' a search at the registrar if they already had them free online, I know some arent online but soon will be. If the records there are more detailed that would be a good reason of course.
-
Hi MUMMYG
Thanks for the reply, Im just trying to understand why you would go to the trouble to 'demand' a search at the registrar if they already had them free online, I know some arent online but soon will be. If the records there are more detailed that would be a good reason of course.
The information on FreeBMD and the various commercial sites is from the GRO Indexes and not from the local Indexes. Whilst some local Register Offices do have the local indexes online on their own website and volunteers have transcribed some indexes from Local Register Offices for a few counties (as part of UKBMD) such as CheshireBMD and LancashireBMD I think its fair to say that the majority are not online and thats unlikely to change much in the near future.
There was a Downing St epetition sometime ago to 'compel' all local offices to allow volunteers to transcribe similar to UKBMD, I haven't seen a response to it but there has been nothing to indicate that it had any success. I believe its up to the individual offices as to whether they allow it or not.
Whilst the local Register Office indexes that are online do vary a bit on what is included, there are some advantages over the GRO Indexes, first of all Births and Deaths usually indicate the sub-district of registration which can help narrow down as to whether an event is yours or not, and with marriages, they not only name the spouse in full, they identify the church if its a church marriage.
Andy
-
Thank you for that
Sorry Im being a bit dim here, I understand now that the local office record is different to the GRO and are sometimes better but are they different (ie more info) if you actually go in and search yourself (as the previous posts suggest you are allowed to) as opposed to seeing them online, assuming there are both options. :-\ Hope thats not too confusing.
-
i live in aberdeenshire,to have a record search done(,births,deaths marriages) its £10 for the hour,but i nipped in one day and only needed to check a date of death and it cost me 5 quid just for that,took the woman 2 mins to search,dont mind paying the ten pounds as you can find out loads in an hour but £5 to search one cert? thats a bit much!
-
Well apparently you are entitled to search the indexes yourself for free, you only have to pay them
if they do the search for you.
-
Don't confuse Scotland with England and Wales. They have different rules than England and Wales and the act that Graham, Guy and myself mentioned is for England and Wales only.
Graham as the fee for a cert is set in statute Salford cannot charge an administration fee for this work because they are legally obliged to do this. Likewise I would argue that the cost or returning a cert should be borne out of this fee as it is with the GRO. That said I dont disagree that a nominal charge for Debit/Credit card payment be added due to the cost the bank charge for this option.
Rob
-
Don't confuse Scotland with England and Wales. They have different rules than England and Wales and the act that Graham, Guy and myself mentioned is for England and Wales only.
Graham as the fee for a cert is set in statute Salford cannot charge an administration fee for this work because they are legally obliged to do this. Likewise I would argue that the cost or returning a cert should be borne out of this fee as it is with the GRO. That said I dont disagree that a nominal charge for Debit/Credit card payment be added due to the cost the bank charge for this option.
Rob
I'm still of the opinion expressed in posts on 15th/17th May. The fee charged for the duty to supply the cert to someone presenting themselves in person is set but extra can be charged by registrars exercising their power to supply by post.
As I recommended to Parmesan three weeks ago, in the specific case of Salford the proper action is to use FoI and ask for details of how the fees are made up and the powers/duties under which the fees are levied. I don't know if Parmesan has acted on that recommendation but until someone does there is little point in further speculation.
Graham
-
Thanks Graham
I don't know if FOI requests can be made by email but I have just done what you have suggested
Rob
-
Thanks Graham
I don't know if FOI requests can be made by email but I have just done what you have suggested
Rob
Good. Yes, e-mail is perfectly OK for FoI requests.
-
I rather belatedly applied for the info last week.
-
I have had a response saying I will get the answer within 20 working days so we will see. I requested basically what grounds they decided they had to charge a £1 admin fee for all non debit/credit card payment, the process they went through to decide this amount. I asked for one other point but off the top of my head I don't remember what it was. I also emailed my MP asking similar questions and also whether legally a local office could add a fee to a statutory fee. I wait in hope she will reply
Rob
-
I have only had the standard response so far .......
-
Just spotted this - add my twopennorth -
Wandsworth Council wanted to charge me £30.00 and that was around 5 years ago.
-
I have had a response saying I will get the answer within 20 working days so we will see. I requested basically what grounds they decided they had to charge a £1 admin fee for all non debit/credit card payment, the process they went through to decide this amount. I asked for one other point but off the top of my head I don't remember what it was. I also emailed my MP asking similar questions and also whether legally a local office could add a fee to a statutory fee. I wait in hope she will reply
Rob
That's just as it should be. I always sent out that sort of standard response when I was an FoI officer unless it was possible to answer the question in full immediately. It confirms receipt and that the matter is being dealt with properly.
Graham
-
Oh dear - just found my husband's 2 x g.parents died in Salford. He is fairly easy to find on the deaths - there was only one of the correct age. The problem with his 2 x g.grandmother is that she died before ages were put on FreeBMD and there are about 4 choices. I won't be following her up any further, either through GRO or Salford.
Lizzie
-
Thats rediculous, forty pounds to prove one person,tsk! Shot themselves in the foot I think, Ive not bought one since they upped the price, Im doing other research that doesnt need certs first, I may not ever use them again, who knows.
-
Is this an answer? Is a request for a BMD a 'discretionary service'?
"I am writing in response to your Freedom of Information request of 29 June 2010. You requested the following information:
'I note from your website and from the online form at Lancashire BMD that you are charging £10 for BMD certificates. Under the Freedom of Information Act may I request details of how the fees are made up and the powers and duties under which the fees are levied.'
In answer to your request the council can confirm that, in accordance with the Local Government Act 2003 (General Power for authorities to charge for Discretionary Services), it was decided to charge an administration fee on all certificate applications made to this authority by all means of application with the exception of an application made in person. The fee of £1.00 was confirmed, in line with other AGMA (Association of Greater Manchester Authorities) authorities levying an extra fee in addition to the statutory fee of £9.00 per certificate.
The council considers it has fulfilled your Freedom of Information request. If you are dissatisfied with the way your request has been handled, or wish to appeal this decision, you may wish to contact David Sackfield, Head of Business Support and Information Management, Customer and Support Services Directorate; email: david.sackfield@salford.gov.uk
Details of how to lodge an appeal can be found at www.salford.gov.uk.
If you are still dissatisfied following any internal appeal, you may wish to contact the Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF - www.ico.gov.uk, Tel: 01625 545 700, Fax: 01625 524 510.
Yours sincerely
Andrew van Damms"
-
Parmesan,
I have also received that exact same response and I now wonder if anyone can tell us if any other registry office in teh GMA are actually charging an extra pound for certificates
Rob
-
well Manchester don't for a start!
-
Bolton don't
Bury says to write to register office
Manchester don't
Oldham have a link to GRO
Rochdale charge the £1 admin fee!
Stockport don't
Tameside don't seem to
Trafford don't
Wigan don't
Associate members
Blackburn with Darwen - no fee given
Blackpool - £1 for credit card payments
Cheshire no
Warrington no
So it looks like salford and Rochdale >:(
I am reposting Guy's earlier post on the subject
"I assume Salford are relying on the Local Government Act 2003 to make a discretionary cherge.
However the Local Government Act 2003 section 93 states -
"93 Power to charge for discretionary services
(1) Subject to the following provisions, a best value authority may charge a person for providing a service to him if—
(a) the authority is authorised, but not required, by an enactment to provide the service to him, and
(b) he has agreed to its provision.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the authority—
(a) has power apart from this section to charge for the provision of the service, or
(b) is expressly prohibited from charging for the provision of the service. "
All Registrars and Superintendant Registrars have a statutory duty (under the Marriage Act, 1949 and the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1953) to provide a requested certificate therefore the discrectionary power to raise and additiona charge does not apply.
Cheers
Guy"
-
I don't pretend to able to follow this but does section 94 make a difference?
94. Power to disapply section 93(1)
(1)The appropriate person may by order disapply section 93(1)—
(a)in relation to particular descriptions of best value authority or particular best value authorities;
(b)in relation to the provision of a particular kind of service by—
(i)all best value authorities,
(ii)particular best value authorities, or
(iii)particular descriptions of best value authority.
(2)The power under subsection (1) includes power to disapply for a particular period.
95Power to trade in function-related activities through a company
?
-
Is this an answer? Is a request for a BMD a 'discretionary service'?
If you look back at my posts of 15 & 17 May you will see that Salford are saying very much the same thing. The discretionary service is to process applications not made in person.
it was decided to charge an administration fee on all certificate applications made to this authority by all means of application with the exception of an application made in person.
The amount of the admin fee and whether or not any other council charges it are totally irrelevant. The council is acting legally.
Graham
-
fair enough, :)
I still don't like it though ;D
-
fair enough, :)
I still don't like it though ;D
;D
Actually, thinking about it since my last post, the extra £1 is probably the most cost effective for the vast majority of people. When one adds up travel costs and time costs (even someone on minimum wage earns £1 in about 10 minutes) there must be very few people who could make a personal application for less than £1 :)
Graham
-
Perhaps so but it is still illegal.
They have a statutory duty to provide anyone with a copy of any entry in a register they hold.
There is a set charge for providing that copy and therefore they do not have a right to add the discretionary charge.
What they are doing is charging twice for the service they have a duty to provide.
That is not only wrong under the legislation it is morally wrong as well.
Cheers
Guy
-
Sorry Guy but it is not illegal.
As I said in May and as Salford Council have confirmed, the statutory duty is to supply a copy where application is made in person.
The Marriage Act 1949 and the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 are silent as regards application other than in person and, therefore, it is impossible for a duty to be imposed on the Council where such applications are received. Responding to such applications can, therefore, be nothing other than a discretionary service and charging for such a service is perfectly legal.
Graham
-
???
Graham says its legal Guy says not.
If its really not I would want to keep pressuring them - can I quote section 93 to them or would that be unwise?
Thanks
-
or is this like the debate on the 1921 thread where its all about interpretation of the law?
-
or is this like the debate on the 1921 thread where its all about interpretation of the law
It would appear to be, like a lot of legislation not everything is spelt out in detail and in this case it doesn't state at what point a Register Office has met its legal obligation, and whether that obligation includes the delivery of a certificate to anywhere in the world.
In this case Salford have given their view, if you disagree then you could contact the Registrar General for their opinion.
Andy
-
Sorry Guy but it is not illegal.
As I said in May and as Salford Council have confirmed, the statutory duty is to supply a copy where application is made in person.
The Marriage Act 1949 and the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 are silent as regards application other than in person and, therefore, it is impossible for a duty to be imposed on the Council where such applications are received. Responding to such applications can, therefore, be nothing other than a discretionary service and charging for such a service is perfectly legal.
Graham
There is nothing in any of the Marriage Acts or the Births & Deaths Acts from 1836 to date the requires applications to be made in person.
If you are so sure that there is please quote from the relevant Act.
Your argument falls apart at the first hurdle as the wording for Superintendent Registrars is the same as the wording for the Registrar General.
For example the Marriage Act, 1949 states the following-
“64.-(I) Every superintendent registrar shall cause indexes of the marriage register books in his office to be made and to be kept with the other records of his office, and the Registrar General shall supply to every superintendent registrar suitable forms for the making of such indexes.
(2) Any person shall be entitled at all reasonable hours to search the said indexes, and to have a certified copy of any entry in the said marriage register books under the hand of the superintendent registrar, on payment to the superintendent registrar of the following fee, that is to say :-
65.-(I) The Registrar General shall cause indexes of all certified copies of entries in marriage register books sent to him under this Part of this Act to be made and kept in the General Register Office.
(2) Any person shall be entitled to search the said indexes between the hours of ten in the morning and four in the afternoon of every day, except Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday, and to have a certified copy of any entry in the said certified copies of marriage register books, on payment to the Registrar General or to such other person as may be appointed to act on his behalf of the following fee, that is to say :-“
If the statutory requirement is the application has to be made in person how does one search the index (which has to be kept with the registers) when the GRO no longer makes the indexes available to search.
This shows that either the GRO is acting illegally ( yet the GRO lawyers claim it is not) or the CRO is acting illegally as I claim.
Better still do as I have done on various occasions (such as when I queried the legality of Registrars refusing access to registers in their care) and ask the Registrar General for directions on that particular point.
Cheers
Guy
-
There is nothing in any of the Marriage Acts or the Births & Deaths Acts from 1836 to date the requires applications to be made in person.
You disprove that statement in your own post Guy.
If you are so sure that there is please quote from the relevant Act.
by including the relevant part (thank you)
Your argument falls apart at the first hurdle as the wording for Superintendent Registrars is the same as the wording for the Registrar General.
For example the Marriage Act, 1949 states the following-
“64.-(I) Every superintendent registrar shall cause indexes of the marriage register books in his office to be made and to be kept with the other records of his office, and the Registrar General shall supply to every superintendent registrar suitable forms for the making of such indexes.
(2) Any person shall be entitled at all reasonable hours to search the said indexes, and to have a certified copy of any entry in the said marriage register books under the hand of the superintendent registrar, on payment to the superintendent registrar of the following fee, that is to say :-
65.-(I) The Registrar General shall cause indexes of all certified copies of entries in marriage register books sent to him under this Part of this Act to be made and kept in the General Register Office.
(2) Any person shall be entitled to search the said indexes between the hours of ten in the morning and four in the afternoon of every day, except Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday, and to have a certified copy of any entry in the said certified copies of marriage register books, on payment to the Registrar General or to such other person as may be appointed to act on his behalf of the following fee, that is to say :-“
My emphases. How on earth is anyone going to undertake a search unless they do it in person? The provision of the certified copy is tied, by the wording of the Act, to the search (which the person undertakes).
If the statutory requirement is the application has to be made in person how does one search the index (which has to be kept with the registers) when the GRO no longer makes the indexes available to search.
This shows that either the GRO is acting illegally ( yet the GRO lawyers claim it is not) or the CRO is acting illegally as I claim.
If the indexes are not available for personal search that may well be illegal but it is not the point under debate. The Acts are totally silent regarding applications made other than following a search and, therefore, it is impossible for a duty to be imposed on the Council where applications are otherwise received.
Better still do as I have done on various occasions (such as when I queried the legality of Registrars refusing access to registers in their care) and ask the Registrar General for directions on that particular point.
If anyone does want to take this any further then the thing to do is to use Salford Council's complaints procedure to allege that the Council is acting illegally. When the various stages of the complaints procedure find that the complaint is unjustified there is a right of appeal to the Local Government Ombudsman.
Graham
-
Graham, you have completely missed the point.
It is no longer possible to make a personal application at the GRO.
This therefore proves that the wording in the Act means what it says
A person is entitled to search.
and
A person is entitled to receive a certificate.
To separate entitlements in a single sentence, neither dependant on the other.
You are reading the Act as if a person has to make a search and order a certificate.
If that was the case those who did not find what they were searching for or for other reasons did not order a certificate would be breaking the law.
The fact that they do not break the law also supports the view (taken by the GRO lawyers) that the two entitlements are separate and not dependant on each other.
As long as the relevant reference and the fee is paid there is a statutory duty for the office to supply the certificate.
Cheers
Guy
-
Graham, you have completely missed the point.
It is no longer possible to make a personal application at the GRO.
As I said, that is a different point to the one under debate, which is whether Salford Council is acting legally or not in making the admin charge. Personal application at the GRO is separate from application to Salford Council.
This therefore proves that the wording in the Act means what it says
A person is entitled to search.
and
A person is entitled to receive a certificate.
To separate entitlements in a single sentence, neither dependant on the other.
You are reading the Act as if a person has to make a search and order a certificate.
If that was the case those who did not find what they were searching for or for other reasons did not order a certificate would be breaking the law.
The fact that they do not break the law also supports the view (taken by the GRO lawyers) that the two entitlements are separate and not dependant on each other.
Breaking the law? Not at all. The fact that there is an entitlement imposes no obligation on the searcher to request a copy of any particular entry.
As long as the relevant reference and the fee is paid there is a statutory duty for the office to supply the certificate.
The only certainty is that we are never going to agree on this point unless it goes to the Ombudsman (or equivalent) :)
Graham
-
So, if I wanted to be awkward I could go to Salford Register Office and say I wanted to search their registers personally and they would be obliged to let me? I could do with getting say about 100 people in Salford to come with me and do it at the same time, every day for a month. Maybe they'd have a rethink? ;D
But seriously, I need it clarified but some body independent of Salford. I did send an email to the GRO yonks ago and never got a response so I've sent one to the Financial Ombudsman.
-
But seriously, I need it clarified but some body independent of Salford. I did send an email to the GRO yonks ago and never got a response so I've sent one to the Financial Ombudsman.
If you sent a written request for information to the GRO then it should have been dealt with under the terms of FoIA. I suggest you follow it up on that route, using the complaints form at http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/contact_us.asp.
Contacting the Financial Ombudsman will get you absolutely nowhere as this type of matter is nothing to do with that office. The Financial Ombudsman is "the independent service for settling disputes between businesses providing financial services and their customers".
Graham
-
Thanks Graham, will do. No harm done, I'll just wait for the 'get lost' response ;D
(They did resolve a banking issue for me :))
-
My emphases. How on earth is anyone going to undertake a search unless they do it in person? The provision of the certified copy is tied, by the wording of the Act, to the search (which the person undertakes).
Graham
One very simple way is to ask for a look up on a forum then to apply using the reference given.
There is no need for a person to visit Salford to be able to quote a CRO reference.
The point is the CRO has a statutory duty to supply a copy of any entry requested from a register they hold on payment of a fee.
As this is a statutory duty they do not have the freedom to add any discretionary charge.
As they are adding a discretionary charge they are acting illegally.
There is nothing in the legislation that requires the person who requires the certificate to visit the CRO (though they may if they wish).
There is nothing in the legislation that requires them even to provide a reference number, identifying the entry by other means would suffice.
The duty is clear and unambiguous, the Superintendent Registrar must supply the requested entry from the register on payment of the statutory fee.
Cheers
Guy
-
I was taught that in cases like this one has to look at the intentions of Parliament when the legislation was passed.
Apart from changes to the levels of fees we are talking about legislation passed in 1949 and 1953. At the time the only indexes available from which anyone could obtain the necessary information to order a certificate were the hard copy ones held in the relevant offices. Parliament at the time would never have envisaged copies of indexes on microform, let alone on the Internet. The intention of Parliament must, therefore, have been that one would have to consult the index (necessarily in person) in order to identify the certificate required. The advance of technology which has made indexes available in other forms matters not a jot.
I recall, from around 15-20 years ago some legislation (can't remember exactly off the top of my head) which defined legally valid forms of recording of information as hard copy. The legislation had to be specifically amended to include microform to allow its use. Very shortly after the amendment, storing of digitally scanned images became practical but they were not legally valid because the legislation did not cover them.
In the case of certificate ordering we have similar circumstances. The fact that legislation has not been changed to keep pace with the change in technology means that applications by post or telephone still fall outside the scope of the statutory duty.
Graham
-
I have now sent an email to the GRO. Hopefully will we get a definitive answer.
-
I have now sent an email to the GRO. Hopefully will we get a definitive answer.
I hope so - cheaper than going to court ;D ;D
-
Graham, you have just given a further reason why Salford is acting illegally as not only are they breaking the regulations they are breaking the spirit or intention of the regulations.
I will not give the full chronological history of civil registers through parish registers but the development of Civil Registers from Parish Registers can be clearly shown.
In 1644 an Ordinance was passed which read-
“…to all persons reasonably desiring to search for the birth, baptizing, marriage, or burial of any person therein registered, and to take a copy or procure a certificate thereof."
The use of the word copy and the word procure shows the intention to allow a person to either copy the register in person or to use a third party to obtain the certificate.
Forward to “recent” times this is further reinforced by terminology used for short certificates in the 1953 Act viz. –
“33.-(1) Any person shall, on payment of a fee of ninepence and on furnishing the prescribed particulars, be entitled to obtain from the Registrar General, a superintendent registrar or a registrar a short certificate of the birth of any person.”
The use of the word furnishing in the above shows the intention is that a person simply sends the relevant details to the Registrar etc., who then sends the certificate.
Also from the same Act
“36. If any person commits any of the following offences, that is to say-
(b) if he refuses or fails without reasonable excuse to give, deliver or send any certificate which he is required by this Act to give, deliver or send ;”
This again shows that it is expected that applications may be in person (give) local (deliver) or at a distance (send).
The fact that Salford asks for a stamped addressed envelope
“If you apply by post please complete this form and enclose a stamped addressed envelope and the appropriate fee in sterling.”
Further shows that they understand applications will be received through the post.
Cheers
Guy
-
The fact that Salford asks for a stamped addressed envelope
“If you apply by post please complete this form and enclose a stamped addressed envelope and the appropriate fee in sterling.”
Further shows that they understand applications will be received through the post.
Salford are asking you not to send a stamped addressed envelope.
Salford City Council is now operating a guaranteed 2/3 day delivery with the post with a different postal service provider. It is now advisable not to send your own stamped addressed envelope as you may receive your certificates quicker, by letting us address your envelope
http://www.salford.gov.uk/copycert.htm
Andy
-
Graham, you have just given a further reason why Salford is acting illegally as not only are they breaking the regulations they are breaking the spirit or intention of the regulations.
Once again we disagree :)
I will not give the full chronological history of civil registers through parish registers but the development of Civil Registers from Parish Registers can be clearly shown.
In 1644 an Ordinance was passed which read-
“…to all persons reasonably desiring to search for the birth, baptizing, marriage, or burial of any person therein registered, and to take a copy or procure a certificate thereof."
The use of the word copy and the word procure shows the intention to allow a person to either copy the register in person or to use a third party to obtain the certificate.
I won't argue about the intention in 1644 but the relevant current legislation is in the 1949 and 1953 acts so they have to take precedence over earlier legislation. Obviously, though, if a person is copying a register entry they have to be there to do it.
Forward to “recent” times this is further reinforced by terminology used for short certificates in the 1953 Act viz. –
“33.-(1) Any person shall, on payment of a fee of ninepence and on furnishing the prescribed particulars, be entitled to obtain from the Registrar General, a superintendent registrar or a registrar a short certificate of the birth of any person.”
The use of the word furnishing in the above shows the intention is that a person simply sends the relevant details to the Registrar etc., who then sends the certificate.
Interesting that there is a separate section to deal with short certificates. The implication is that the conditions for obtaining a short certificate differ from those for obtaining a full certificate (the latter being what we are debating).
Also from the same Act
“36. If any person commits any of the following offences, that is to say-
(b) if he refuses or fails without reasonable excuse to give, deliver or send any certificate which he is required by this Act to give, deliver or send ;”
This again shows that it is expected that applications may be in person (give) local (deliver) or at a distance (send).
No. All this says that provision of the certificate has to be by giving, delivering or sending. It is totally silent as regards the application.
The fact that Salford asks for a stamped addressed envelope
“If you apply by post please complete this form and enclose a stamped addressed envelope and the appropriate fee in sterling.”
Further shows that they understand applications will be received through the post.
Whether or not Salford ask for a SAE (taking into account Andy's post) I don't think anyone is arguing that they understand that applications may - these days - be received through the post (and, indeed, by telephone). The council is agreeing to process applications received by post or telephone as a discretionary service, additional to the statutory duty of dealing with applications in person.
There certainly can't have been an expectation by Parliament in 1949/1953 that applications would be made by telephone as the credit/debit cards needed to make payment simply did not exist in this country in those days.
As I said the other day though, we are never going to agree on this point unless it goes to the Ombudsman (or equivalent). All being well Parmesan's request to the GRO will result in a definitive answer which we can all accept. The only other option is for somebody to take Salford Council to court - and I haven't the time, money or inclination to do so :)
Graham
-
The fact that Salford asks for a stamped addressed envelope
“If you apply by post please complete this form and enclose a stamped addressed envelope and the appropriate fee in sterling.”
Further shows that they understand applications will be received through the post.
Salford are asking you not to send a stamped addressed envelope.
Salford City Council is now operating a guaranteed 2/3 day delivery with the post with a different postal service provider. It is now advisable not to send your own stamped addressed envelope as you may receive your certificates quicker, by letting us address your envelope
http://www.salford.gov.uk/copycert.htm
Andy
yes, but that doesn't alter the fact that they expect postal applications.
-
i have the national burial index for wales and uk (second edition) must point out not everyone is in it. only the places that have donated their records.. so not everyone is in it. but there is plenty.. send me your person/s and i will look. must point out too i cannot print out from the index you have to take my word..i'm an honest person that likes to help in family hisory...
-
I feel that I am missing something here :-[
Is is really worth all this fuss over a teensy bit extra to pay?
Won't matter soon for births because the Mat Unit is scheduled to close next year so birth registrations will be way down!
Have a look at the facebook page "Keep Hope Maternity Open" and see why it matters.
The service from Salford is fab, I have been in and checked the indexes and never have any trouble, very helpful staff. :)
-
Ive just been looking at the online index for Manchester for two births post 1900, found them on freebmd but not on the local register index?? plus, didnt there used to be mothers maiden name listed, not there now, why would looking at the actual office index be worth my while if things are missing? It cant be human error transcribing surely, two births for the same parents 3 years apart.
-
Is is really worth all this fuss over a teensy bit extra to pay?
what is a teensy bit extra to you is not necessarily for someone else especially if they are sending for several certificates.
It's a point of law I want clarifying, so yes, its important.
-
I feel that I am missing something here :-[
Is is really worth all this fuss over a teensy bit extra to pay?
Won't matter soon for births because the Mat Unit is scheduled to close next year so birth registrations will be way down!
Have a look at the facebook page "Keep Hope Maternity Open" and see why it matters.
The service from Salford is fab, I have been in and checked the indexes and never have any trouble, very helpful staff. :)
Whether it matters or not depends on whether you value access to records or not.
If you do not value access to records then no, it does not matter.
If you do value access to records then yes, it does matter.
If the public had fought against the Registrar General removing the access to civil registers held by the GRO in 1898 then we would still be able to access those registers today.
In 1974 the Registrar General tried to prevent access to Registers held by Superintendent Registrars but some of us opposed the closure and cited the relevant Acts of Parliament and access was restored (though some registrars still try to prevent access to registers they hold).
I had to write to the Registrar General (Karen Dunnell) a few years ago to request she reminded Registrars of their legal obligation on that very point a few years ago and she sent a memo out.
In this life one has to fight for ones rights otherwise they get eroded and eventually the right is withdrawn completely.
Cheers
Guy
-
Bravo!
-
It's a point of law I want clarifying, so yes, its important.
That is the important point to me as well. Where a duty is imposed by law, whether that be on an individual, a public sector body or a private company, then that duty must be complied with. Hopefully Parmesan's request to the GRO will establish the extent of the duty in this case.
What will definitely happen in future though, given the current economic problems, is that services provided by the public sector which are discretionary will be scaled back and/or the charge for them will be increased - in exactly the same way that private sector organisations react to similar circumstances.
Graham
-
"what is a teensy bit extra to you is not necessarily for someone else especially if they are sending for several certificates"
I am the sole breadwinner for my family so money isn't exactly flush but I recognise that a certificate is a luxury for my hobby and that non essential items come at a price.
"Whether it matters or not depends on whether you value access to records or not."
I do value access to records and take part in many activities to preserve them.
This isn't the issue here because we have access to them.
"In this life one has to fight for ones rights otherwise they get eroded and eventually the right is withdrawn completely"
Exactly but some things come at a cost. Not everything is free of charge. In the current economic climate it is not unreasonable to pay a bit more. If the number of registrations goes down in Salford it may be that we lose even more of the service in Salford and will have to pay even more for certificate copies.
Fighting to keep the maternity and neonatal unit open in Salford ;D
-
reply to my email
"Your e-mail has been forwarded to our Local Government Support section for reply."
-
Exactly but some things come at a cost. Not everything is free of charge. In the current economic climate it is not unreasonable to pay a bit more. If the number of registrations goes down in Salford it may be that we lose even more of the service in Salford and will have to pay even more for certificate copies.
No one has mentioned free access.
The cost of providing certificates is examined annually and the fee set. The fee has been recently increased due in part to the present economic crisis.
Not content with receiving the statutory fee Salford want to add a further charge.
It is that additional charge that is wrong as it is specifically exempted from being levied on statutory duty.
People of Salford will continue to have children, get married and die in Salford whether the maternity and neonatal unit remains open or is closed.
The fee one pays for the registrations does not depend on numbers but is set nationally by statutory instrument.
In fact it could be argued that there could be more deaths registered if the unit was closed, which would rather defeat your claim.
For the record I hope you are successful in keeping it open.
Cheers
Guy
-
I do not see what the difference is to me sending a cheque for £9 and asking for a cert from their indexes or attending the office. I always send a Stamped Addressed Envelope so there are no costs incurred there for the office. They have outgoing mail anyway so there is no added work there. All in all they would be charging me a pound for licking an envelope.
As for the legality of this charge I am split between both Guy's arguments and Graham's. However that said in the response Parmesan and I received they said the was agreed across the whole of Greater Manchester yet they as far as I can tell are the only one charging such.
Rob
-
Well I had a bit of a lapse and forgot to mention in my email to the GRO that I had already contacted Salford ::) but anyway here is their reply. :)
"Thank you for your email of 25 July.
Fees for certificates issued by superintendent registrars and registrars are set by statute (the Marriage Act 1949 and the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953) and our view, as the General Register Office, is that registration officers have no power to make an administrative charge for providing this service. Only where the local authority provides an additional, discretionary service, is it able to charge a supplementary fee (to recover the cost) under the powers available to it under the Local Government Act 2003. It is of course for each local authority to satisfy itself that it has the powers to do so in specific circumstances.
As your enquiry is about fees issued by Salford registration service it is open to you to raise this matter with the Proper Officer for Registration Matters at Salford Council. Contact details are:-
John Tanner, Assistant Director of Customer Services, Customer and Support Services, Law and Administration Division, Salford Metropolitan Borough Council, Civic Centre, Chorley Road, Swinton M27 5DA"
-
I suppose I should now
email write to this chap with copies of emails from Salford and GRO?
I'm not very good at this sort of thing :(
-
Disappointing reply from the GRO in that they do not say one way or the other whether they view responding to applications not made in person as discretionary or not.
If I were you, given that Salford Council have already said that they do view responding to applications not made in person as discretionary, I should contact the GRO again (the person who sent the reply), tell them what Salford have said, and ask them for a straight answer as to whether or not they agree with Salford in these circumstances.
If the GRO agree with Salford's position then that would seem to be an end to the matter. However, I suspect that they will throw the ball back by repeating the comment "It is of course for each local authority to satisfy itself that it has the powers to do so in specific circumstances".
If the response is the latter, or one disagreeing with Salford, you may wish to e-mail (rather than write to) John Tanner to ask for explicit details of why the service is discretionary. His contact details are on the Salford web site at http://www.salford.gov.uk/customerservices.htm
Graham
-
Thanks Graham, I have already replied to the GRO with Salford's response so hopefully I will get a response to that tomorrow, I hope so anyway, I'm off to the Outer Hebrides on Friday!
-
Actually re-reading that email it says "Only where the local authority provides an additional, discretionary service, is it able to charge a supplementary fee (to recover the cost) under the powers available to it under the Local Government Act 2003"
what is it that they are doing that is 'additional'? ???
-
Actually re-reading that email it says "Only where the local authority provides an additional, discretionary service, is it able to charge a supplementary fee (to recover the cost) under the powers available to it under the Local Government Act 2003"
what is it that they are doing that is 'additional'? ???
If my interpretation of the Acts is correct, responding to applications made other than in person is "additional" to the duty which the Acts impose and a fee can be charged.
If Guy's interpretation is correct then responding to applications made other than in person is included in the duty which the Acts impose and a fee can not be charged.
Graham
-
If my interpretation of the Acts is correct, responding to applications made other than in person is "additional" to the duty which the Acts impose and a fee can be charged.
Graham
If that is the case then my thread title was spot on, they are having a good old belly laugh. They are not moving one more muscle in processing a postal/email request.
Salford stated in their response to me that "The fee of £1.00 was confirmed, in line with other AGMA (Association of Greater Manchester Authorities) authorities levying an extra fee in addition to the statutory fee of £9.00 per certificate." That is totally untrue as only one other authority, Rochdale charge an admin fee. (that I can see)
>:(
-
If that is the case then my thread title was spot on, they are having a good old belly laugh. They are not moving one more muscle in processing a postal/email request.
Salford stated in their response to me that "The fee of £1.00 was confirmed, in line with other AGMA (Association of Greater Manchester Authorities) authorities levying an extra fee in addition to the statutory fee of £9.00 per certificate." That is totally untrue as only one other authority, Rochdale charge an admin fee. (that I can see)
>:(
Nothing to do with having a laugh - the opposite in fact. As I pointed out yesterday:What will definitely happen in future though, given the current economic problems, is that services provided by the public sector which are discretionary will be scaled back and/or the charge for them will be increased - in exactly the same way that private sector organisations react to similar circumstances.
Leaving aside for a moment whether this particular service is discretionary or not, the general picture is that whilst councils can provide discretionary services because there is an element of capacity available from the resources they have to employ to fulfil statutory duties then they will do so but the cost may well rise. When it comes to a state where councils have to employ extra resources to provide discretionary services then they could well refuse to provide them unless they are sure they can cover the costs involved without putting an extra burden on Council Tax payers.
Graham
-
I think that proves the arguments that both Guy and I have said from the start. Parmesan if you wish to send me a copy of the email I will make representations to Salford Council. I already have used their complaints procedure on this subject.
PM me for my email address
Rob
-
This is what I have just sent to Mr Tanner.
"Mr Tanner,
After recently being shown an email from the GRO I wish you to now explain what discretionary service you are providing that justifies an extra charge of a pound for certificate via post or phone. They state that as a statutory fee you have no right to add discretionary charges except where providing additional services. The two acts that provide for certificates to be issued on request provide for a statutory requirement for you to provide such and therefore I see no reason that you can suggest that a discretionary charge should be applied. I believe that what you are doing is ilegal and contrary to the FOI reply I received no other registry office in the greater Manchester area is increasing the charges.
I await your response and that of my MP"
Rob
-
Leaving aside for a moment whether this particular service is discretionary or not, the general picture is that whilst councils can provide discretionary services because there is an element of capacity available from the resources they have to employ to fulfil statutory duties then they will do so but the cost may well rise. When it comes to a state where councils have to employ extra resources to provide discretionary services then they could well refuse to provide them unless they are sure they can cover the costs involved without putting an extra burden on Council Tax payers.
Graham
Unfortunately Graham in this case they have a statutory duty to provide certificates and thereore cannot refuse.
Rob
-
Unfortunately Graham in this case they have a statutory duty to provide certificates and thereore cannot refuse.
Rob
Nobody is arguing a statutory duty exists Rob. It is the extent of that duty which is being debated. If the statutory duty only covers personal applications then it is perfectly legal for any other form of application to be refused.
Graham
-
The duty is very plain and simple.
There is a duty on every vicar, registrar, superintendent registrar, the registrar general or any other authorised person to supply a copy of an entry from any register in their possession where the entry has been identified and the fee paid.
There are no exceptions regarding postal applications, email applications, telephone applications or applications in person.
If the entry is identified and the fee paid the copy must be supplied.
Perhaps invoking the hard labour or the penal servitude, specified in the legislation, may illicit the required response.
Cheers
Guy
-
Graham,
I understood that but I would say postal, by phone or in person is one in the same where the statutory duty is concerned. After all the GRO accept web based requests and postal requests after requesting the correct order form from themselves. I appreciate the GRO doesn't have a walk in option since the closing of the FRC which to some extent negates that argument. I do wonder how Salford would cope if everyone with a need for a cert from them was to descend on the office en masse and put in the request there and then. At least by post they can invoke some time delay in sending the cert which to some extent they cannot do if the person is there in front of them. Yes I know they would say sorry we are so busy we will have to post this out to you. If they did would they want the extra pound?
Rob
-
I know it's different end of the country, but if I want to order a copy of a BMD from Reading registry office they will charge me £12 and that is wether I go there and order it or order by post!
Salford doesn't seem to be the only one trying to get more money out of people.
-
Well my advice is question it. That's outrageous!
edit: they're not even claiming its an admin fee!
-
Graham,
I understood that but I would say postal, by phone or in person is one in the same where the statutory duty is concerned.
There are no exceptions regarding postal applications, email applications, telephone applications or applications in person.
That's what we are waiting for official word on isn't it :)
Graham
-
I know it's different end of the country, but if I want to order a copy of a BMD from Reading registry office they will charge me £12 and that is wether I go there and order it or order by post!
Salford doesn't seem to be the only one trying to get more money out of people.
Looking at the Reading BC web site - http://www.reading.gov.uk/communityandliving/registrar/General.asp?id=SX9452-A77FE4E5 and linked pages - it appears that the £12 fee covers a General Search at the superintendent registrar’s office.
Given that the latest versions of the Births & Deaths Registration Act 1953 and the Marriage Act 1949 available on the Statute Law database quote fees of £18 for such searches, in addition to certificate fees of £7 each (looks like they are still to be updated for the latest changes) then £12 is a bit of a bargain isn't it? :)
Graham
-
Graham - I bow to your superior knowledge if I have read this wrong but asking for full details ie
Details required for a replacement Birth Certificate
•Full name, date and place of birth
•Father's full name
•Mother's full name
is hardly conducting a search - I am telling them where to find the record - also if that's the case that they are conducting a general search what about a certificate where I have found the exact record by looking in the records which reading this thread I am allowed to do?
-
If you look on the linked pages for the application forms you will find details of the searching they expect to undertake.
Graham
P.S. Mind you, my earlier post was a bit tongue in cheek :)
-
Under the guidelines I understand they will do a search one year either side of the date you give them free of charge.
What makes me laugh about Salford is when you compare it to say Gwynned they are doing nothing. I recently had to use Gwynned for a client and the dates I had from the North Wales BMD didnt correspond to the details I had. Well that was the line that they gave me. The superintendent registrar there phoned me after I queried why they couldnt find the cert. After 45 minutes of checking with me on the phone we both decided to give up. An hour later I received yet another call from her and she had gone back to their records (thankfully they are all indexed on computer there) and she had found the certificate. What did she charge me for all? £7
Rob
-
Perhaps, Rob, you should write to the local newspaper for Gwynedd and inform the local council tax payers of how grateful you are for their subsidy of your business from their contributions ;D
No doubt they will be most impressed ;D
Graham
-
there's nothing wrong with praising the authorities that do a good job without wanting a pound of flesh :)
-
Graham,
I make a point of telling everyone I see. In fact at York I made a major point of telling the Gwynned group that was there
Rob
-
there's nothing wrong with praising the authorities that do a good job without wanting a pound of flesh :)
That isn't the point though is it? As with everywhere else, whatever work is done has to be paid for. Should public sector employees do more than their statutory duty to help researchers (including researchers who are being paid to do the work as Rob mentions)? If they do that means the general taxpayer is subsidising that research.
That might appear to be fine and dandy when we are the recipients but what if it is (say) a council electrician who does some work for free on his mate's house when he should be doing something else?
By all means let's hold people to account if they don't fulfil their statutory duties but let's not do people down because they don't give us the same freebies that others do.
Graham,
I make a point of telling everyone I see. In fact at York I made a major point of telling the Gwynned group that was there
Rob
With respect Rob, they are a group with the same interests. Would general taxpayers be as happy to see your business subsidised by them? ;D
Graham
-
Graham,
The point I was making was that some will go above and beyond to help people yet others wont. As you say Gwynned FHS may have same interests but I was just making the point anybody pleased with a service would have made to people from the same area. The fact the FHS as no connection, other than by voluntarially transcribing an index for the BMD site, with the registry office.
We all expect people to go above and beyond. Ok we shouldn't but that is human nature. Your analogy above btw doesn't work because to go work on his mates house for free would be a form of moonlighting. Now if you had said whilst working on Joe Bloggs house he put in for nothing extra sockets but then refuses on yours because Joe Bloggs was a friend
Rob
-
Your analogy above btw doesn't work because to go work on his mates house for free would be a form of moonlighting.
A rose by any other name ;D My point is that both the registrar and the (theoretical) electrician are doing work at taxpayer cost instead of at customer cost.
Another analogy then. Someone comes to do a job for you at an hourly rate. He spends 4 hours at your house and bills you for four hours but half the time he is on the phone and only actually worked on your job for two hours. Are you happy to pay the full four hours even though it should have only cost you two?
Graham
-
My apologies if this point has already been covered. I have only just come on this thread and have read through to page 6. Unfortunately I will have to come back to it later to complete but wanted to comment on something that appears to have been dropped since page 4 (or even 3).
There was a lot of consternation regarding £1 for P&P when having sent a stamped adddressed envelope. I know this is irrelevant, but it is often how two people can actually argue without realising the actual cause. What dies the requesting party mean by SAE? I thought (years back) that it meant Stamped Addressed Envelope. I discovered that it was Self Addressed Envelope! This meant that sending a Stamped Self Addressed Envelope (SSAE) would often still incur postage.
Just a thought for perusal and to insure I find my way back to this thread (and remind myself to continue from page 7)
Thanks all ;D
Garth
-
Ok I have had a written response from Salford councils superintendent registrar stating that the one pound fee is for admin services which includes time taken to search the manual records, issue of the certificate, envelope and postal costs and time taken accounting for all services.
Now tell me if I am wrong (and Graham I would like your view on this as well) but surely all that falls under the statutory requirements?
Rob
-
Issue of the certificate is definitely within the statutory duty,
Envelope, postal costs and time taken accounting for all services could be argued about but I would expect that they would be within the statutory duty as Parliament could easily have envisaged that issue of the certificate would not always be immediate. Indeed, Salford's own procedures envisage posting out within 2 days for personal applications as well as postal ones so that argues that it is within the statutory duty.
I don't think, though, that searching the manual records (by the registrar's staff) is covered by the statutory duty and, given how little time £1 buys these days, I wouldn't have thought it an unreasonable amount.
The current text on the Statute Law database for the relevant Acts is:
Marriage Act 194964. Searches of indexes kept by superintendent registrars.— (1) Every superintendent registrar shall cause indexes of the marriage register books in his office to be made and to be kept with the other records of his office, and the Registrar General shall supply to every superintendent registrar suitable forms for the making of such indexes.
(2) Any person shall be entitled [F1 at any time when the register office is required to be open for the transaction of public business] to search the said indexes, and to have a certified copy of any entry in the said marriage register books under the hand of the superintendent registrar, on payment to the superintendent registrar of the following fee, that is to say:—
(a)for every general search, the sum of [F2 £18.00]
(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F3
(c)for every certified copy, the sum of [F4 £7.00]
Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)
F1 Words substituted by Registration Service Act 1953 (c. 37), Sch. 1 para. 14(a)
F2 Fee in s. 64(2)(a) payable (1.4.1998) by virtue of S.I. 1997/2939, art.2, Sch. (which S.I. was revoked (1.4.1999) by S.I. 1998/3171, art. 3) and that same fee payable: (1.4.1999) by virtue of S.I. 1998/3171, art. 2, Sch. (which S.I. was revoked (1.4.2000) by S.I. 1999/3311, art. 3); (1.4.2000) by virtue of S.I. 1999/3311, art. 2, Sch. (which S.I was revoked (1.4.2003) by S.I. 2002/3076, art. 3); (1.4.2003
and Births & Deaths Registration Act 195331. Searches of indexes kept by superintendent registrars.— (1) Every superintendent registrar shall cause indexes of the registers of live–births and registers of deaths in his register office to be made and to be kept with the other records of that office, and the Registrar General shall supply to every superintendent registrar suitable forms for the making of such indexes.
(2) Any person shall be entitled at any time when the register office is required to be open for the transaction of public business to search the said indexes, and to have a certified copy of any entry in the said registers under the hand of the superintendent registrar, on payment by that person to the superintendent registrar of the following fees respectively, that is to say—
(a)for every general search, the sum of [F1 £18.00];
(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2
(c)for every certified copy, the sum of [F3 £7.00].
Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)
F1 Fee in s. 31(2)(a) payable (1.4.2003) by virtue of S.I. 2002/3076, art. 2, Sch.
F2 S. 31(2)(b) repealed by S.I. 1968/1242, Sch. 2
F3 Fee in s. 31(2)(c) substituted (1.4.2003) by S.I. 2002/3076, art. 2, Sch.
There is similar wording for searches of indexes kept by Registrar General, the main difference as far as this debate goes being that there is a fee for searching indexes held by superintendant registrars and none for searching registers held by the Registrar General (leaving aside, for the moment, any current lack of access to the latter).
I've been thinking about this over the last few days and back to visits to Myddleton Street where one searched the indexes oneself, found the entry one wanted and wrote the exact reference on the application form so that GRO staff could go straight to the entry without any searching.
Given the similarity of the wording I think that "have a certified copy of any entry" in the case of superintendant registrars also depends on the applicant being able to point out the exact entry.
i.e. I go into Salford Register Office looking for the birth of Joe Bloggs some time in the 1920s (say), find it in the index, write the exact details on the form and hand it to the registrar and pay £9
or I apply by post, by telephone with a debit/credit card or on-line using the procedure at http://www.salford.gov.uk/familyhistory.htm and linked pages (which includes asking the registrar to search for Joe Bloggs rather than giving the exact details of the certificate required) and pay an extra £1 for that search, which is outside the statutory duty.
Graham
-
Extra thought after I pressed the Post button.
According to the wording of the Acts, Salford could make me pay £18 (or whatever it was raised to in April) for the privilege of undertaking the search myself and they are not doing that.
Better not make too much fuss or they might just twig it and start to do so given the coming cutbacks :)
Graham
-
Graham,
The fee of 18 pounds is for someone wanting to search the indexes they hold not for them to search them.
I would have thought that under the statutory provisions of providing certificates on request the manual search of the said books/index would be a part of that statutory duty. The GRO took away their checking service fee as the deemed this to be ilegal so therefore wouldn't charging for a search of the register (that we have no legal right to search) also ilegal?
I have written to the GRO quoting specifics and now await their response before taking this further with the local office. After all the Registrar General is the next rung of the ladder from Superintendent registrar. I don't persoanlly see what the difference is between a postal visit and a request in person that could account for an extra fee of a pound being charged for the postal/phone request
Rob
-
Graham,
The fee of 18 pounds is for someone wanting to search the indexes they hold not for them to search them.
Yes Rob, that's what I said - "undertaking the search myself".
I would have thought that under the statutory provisions of providing certificates on request the manual search of the said books/index would be a part of that statutory duty.
Why? Where in S64/S31 does it mention a search other than by the applicant?
The GRO took away their checking service fee as the deemed this to be ilegal so therefore wouldn't charging for a search of the register (that we have no legal right to search) also ilegal?
There is a legal right for applicants to search the registers. It is provided for in S64/S31. There is (as far as I can see) no statutory duty which says that a superintendant registrar has to undertake a search as part of issuing a certificate. That Salford do undertake a short search is, as they (and the GRO) have explained previously, something which they are allowed (at their discretion) to do under a power provided by the Local Government Act 2003 - so that is also legal.
I have written to the GRO quoting specifics and now await their response before taking this further with the local office. After all the Registrar General is the next rung of the ladder from Superintendent registrar.
I expect you'll receive a response along the same lines as Parmesan quoted in his post timed at 17:06 last Wednesday.
I don't persoanlly see what the difference is between a postal visit and a request in person that could account for an extra fee of a pound being charged for the postal/phone request
The difference is as I spelled out above:I go into Salford Register Office looking for the birth of Joe Bloggs some time in the 1920s (say), find it in the index, write the exact details on the form and hand it to the registrar and pay £9
or I apply by post, by telephone with a debit/credit card or on-line using the procedure at http://www.salford.gov.uk/familyhistory.htm and linked pages (which includes asking the registrar to search for Joe Bloggs rather than giving the exact details of the certificate required) and pay an extra £1 for that search, which is outside the statutory duty.
Graham
-
Graham,
As the registers that are not in the hand of the register not searchable by the public makes a search of such impossible and thus the indexes are produced. Now I place an application for my cert I put my name parents names date of birth and send it to the registrar. They have to search that year to locate my birth. There is no requirement for me to provide them with the office reference.
You didnt answer my question regarding the difference of me going to the office and giving the above details and posting that same information in. There isn't. They even post out if I read their page correct. So for one pound they are opening an envelope.
The GRO stopped their checking service because they believed it to be ilegal to charge for that. Well I would argue that to charge a pound to find the correct cert is ilegal because it is a statutory duty to provide on request a certificate. We will wait for the GRO response and that of my MP
Rob
-
Graham,
As the registers that are not in the hand of the register not searchable by the public makes a search of such impossible and thus the indexes are produced. Now I place an application for my cert I put my name parents names date of birth and send it to the registrar. They have to search that year to locate my birth. There is no requirement for me to provide them with the office reference.
The indexes are produced because it is a requirement of the legislation, not for any other reason - e.g. Marriage Act 1949Every superintendent registrar shall cause indexes of the marriage register books in his office to be made and to be kept with the other records of his office, and the Registrar General shall supply to every superintendent registrar suitable forms for the making of such indexes.
You didnt answer my question regarding the difference of me going to the office and giving the above details and posting that same information in. There isn't. They even post out if I read their page correct. So for one pound they are opening an envelope.
If posting, twiceI go into Salford Register Office looking for the birth of Joe Bloggs some time in the 1920s (say), find it in the index, write the exact details on the form and hand it to the registrar and pay £9
or I apply by post, by telephone with a debit/credit card or on-line using the procedure at http://www.salford.gov.uk/familyhistory.htm and linked pages (which includes asking the registrar to search for Joe Bloggs rather than giving the exact details of the certificate required) and pay an extra £1 for that search, which is outside the statutory duty.
does not make it clear enough, perhaps this third time will. In simple terms, if I go and search the index myself (from a starting point of knowing the event happened in (say) the 1920s) I can find the entry and tell the registrar exactly where in the books to go. If I apply other than in person I can only tell the registrar that I think it happened in the 1920s and require him to undertake the search to find it.
The GRO stopped their checking service because they believed it to be ilegal to charge for that. Well I would argue that to charge a pound to find the correct cert is ilegal because it is a statutory duty to provide on request a certificate. We will wait for the GRO response and that of my MP
As stated previously, I expect you'll receive a response along the same lines as Parmesan quoted in his post timed at 17:06 last Wednesday.
Graham
-
Well I think this ends all discussion. I dont agree with it but what more can we do?
Dear Mr Burns,
Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding the discretionary charge associated with the issuing of copy BDM certificates and also the letter sent you by my Superintendant Registrar, Rebecca Wardley.
Having noted your comments, I would like to stress that the charge for providing a copy certificate is in line with our statutory obligations and as such the cost of £ 9:00 is in accordance with regulations. The additional charge of £1:00, is a local discretionary charge which has been levied to go some way towards the additional associated costs incurred in producing the certificate.
Following your email, enquiries have been made with the GRO who have confirmed that such an additional charge is permissible and is in line with the Local Government Act 2003 on the basis that it is the responsibility of each local authority to determine whether any additional charges are to be levied.
I would also mention, that as part of the service provided, we recognise the speed at which copy certificates are provided is important to those making the request. As such, the service provided as standard has resulted in 99.6% of genealogy requests being dealt with within 3 working days.
We are proud of the fact that this level of service is being delivered within the £10:00 charge and that the only time this fee is increased is if a copy certificate is need immediately and the request is made in person.
I hope you agree that this level of service favours favourably when compared with many other local authorities who describe a standard service as anything up to 5 working days.
If my response is not to your satisfaction or you should you wish to discuss the matter further then please do not hesitate to contact me using the details outlined below.
Regards
-
"I hope you agree that this level of service favours favourably when compared with many other local authorities who describe a standard service as anything up to 5 working days."
Actually, no I don't agree. Maybe they should give the option £10 for a 3 day turnaround and £9 like MOST OTHER Authorities AND the GRO for 3 days plus?
Seems that the law is a complete ass. "it is the responsibility of each local authority to determine whether any additional charges are to be levied." That basically gives them carte blanche to charge whatever they damn well like!
Oh well, Salford won't be getting my business.
Thanks for your efforts Rob :)
-
I dont agree either, my local authority charge £9 and get them to me by return of post as they did when the fee was £7 I still send an sae and they still use it.
-
I think they mean 'compares' favourably as too ::)
-
Seems that the law is a complete ass. "it is the responsibility of each local authority to determine whether any additional charges are to be levied." That basically gives them carte blanche to charge whatever they damn well like!
No, the law isn't a complete ass, the law (in this case) is open to different interpretations as rehearsed previously.
Any civil servant, local government officer or, indeed, employee of a private company can and will only interpret the law with the aim of ensuring that the organisation they work for is operating legally. No civil servant or local government officer can state, definitively, whether or not another public body is acting legally. Even a law enforcement officer undertaking a prosecution of someone only states that he thinks the person/body is acting illegally.
The reason is that only the courts can rule definitely - and, even then, the rulings of lower courts can be appealed at higher courts.
The GRO has stated that local authorities must satisfy themselves as to whether they are acting legally and Salford Council has stated that it has done so.
It would be possible to use the Salford Council complaints procedure to have that stance examined but I should have thought it unlikely that the internal stages would result in it being overturned. A final appeal could then be lodged with the Local Government Ombudsman but the likelihood is that the LGO could not order Salford to change its mind even if the LGO found against the council.
The only other option, and the only one which can produce a definitive answer, is to take Salford Council to court.
Graham
-
Of course you are right Graham, but this simple soul believes a law should be clear and unequivocal not open to 'interpretation'.
Who'd be a barrister?
-
Of course you are right Graham, but this simple soul believes a law should be clear and unequivocal not open to 'interpretation'.
Who'd be a barrister?
That's why there are barristers - plenty of money to be made ;D
Of course it would be great if laws could be clear and unequivocal but, as with so many other things in life, what seems as clear as crystal at the specification stage can easily become as clear as mud when read by another.
As with software, it isn't until it is tested that ambiguities become apparent. Even with the committee etc. stages that bills go through, until somebody actually says "I think this sentence means such and such" that others realise it differs from what they thought.
Graham
-
Aye, I'm often misunderstood myself ;D
-
Watching an Heirs Hunter prog today, Fraser and Fraser staff were thwarted in getting a certificate quickly (like they normally do) from Shropshire. It seemed that you have to 'phone a call centre ::) who take the message, pass it on and the certificate is posted out whenever. I know Fraser and Fraser had to pay more than they usually do to get the certificate by the next day.
As far as I'm concerned, if my ancestors died over 50 years ago or more, waiting a few days to receive the cert from GRO is fine by me. I order on line and at the moment, perhaps because the price has gone up, I have been receiving certs within 3 days.
Lizzie
-
Or maybe its because no one is ordering out of disgust
-
Graham suggested that the only way to change things at Salford would be to go down the complaints procedure with little chance of this changing things. Well that is what I have done and the outcome is as Graham as stated. I am contemplating the Ombudsman as we speak.
Rob
-
I think I will do the same Rob. First I will make for formal complaint to Salford as you have done then follow that up.
Probably on a hiding to nothing but I might as well see it through 'til the end.
Julia
-
Julia,
Yup that was my thought hence why I have just submitted this to the Ombudsman.
Rob
-
Just a quickie, if you need a grave search in any of the Worthing cemeteries you best email parks@adur.gov.uk quick, it's free until April 2011, then it's going to cost you £15 for a search...
-
Graham suggested that the only way to change things at Salford would be to go down the complaints procedure with little chance of this changing things. Well that is what I have done and the outcome is as Graham as stated. I am contemplating the Ombudsman as we speak.
Rob
I think I will do the same Rob. First I will make for formal complaint to Salford as you have done then follow that up.
Probably on a hiding to nothing but I might as well see it through 'til the end.
Julia
To be totally accurate I did not say it was the only way. I said it was one option but one which is unlikely to succeed. I also said:The only other option, and the only one which can produce a definitive answer, is to take Salford Council to court.
Note the highlighting in this repetition.
Galling though it may be it is pointless, Julia, in repeating Rob's action. Whichever way it goes, the outcome will not differ and will only waste public resources (i.e. the tax we all pay).
Graham
-
Galling though it may be it is pointless, Julia, in repeating Rob's action. Whichever way it goes, the outcome will not differ and will only waste public resources (i.e. the tax we all pay).
Graham
Very probably but I am getting my 'additional, discretionary service' out of them
Dogs and bones spring to mind ;D
-
To be fair though, persistence can and does pay off.
sometimes ....
-
Galling though it may be it is pointless, Julia, in repeating Rob's action. Whichever way it goes, the outcome will not differ and will only waste public resources (i.e. the tax we all pay).
Graham
Very probably but I am getting my 'additional, discretionary service' out of them
Dogs and bones spring to mind ;D
Sorry, I disagree. In the sort of economic climate we currently have all such duplication can achieve is to reduce services and/or increase taxation.
To be fair though, persistence can and does pay off.
sometimes ....
Not when it is a matter of law. Neither the LGO (if at all) nor the court would make a different finding in law just because somebody else didn't like it.
Graham
-
So if you have a complaint or feel something is unjust you just shrug or shoulders and say, 'well probably Joe Bloggs has made a complaint so I won't bother cos it will cost the taxpayer'? We could debate till the cows come home about the 'waste of public resources'!
We are talking about public servants here, and its because I am a tax payer that I have every right to question their practices however unsuccessful that may prove to be.
I'm not a shrugger of shoulders type of person Graham and thankfully neither is Guy Etchells who was both persistent and successful.
-
So if you have a complaint or feel something is unjust you just shrug or shoulders and say, 'well probably Joe Bloggs has made a complaint so I won't bother cos it will cost the taxpayer'? We could debate till the cows come home about the 'waste of public resources'!
The point is you have already made your complaint - as has Rob - and it has been rejected. Rob is taking his complaint a stage further and will receive an answer one way or another. For you, or anyone else, to do the same will only be a wasteful duplication.
We are talking about public servants here, and its because I am a tax payer that I have every right to question their practices however unsuccessful that may prove to be.
Again, you have questioned the practices already - see above. You have every right as a taxpayer to ask questions but going over the same ground again and again just because you don't receive the answer you want is a waste of all our money.
I'm not a shrugger of shoulders type of person Graham and thankfully neither is Guy Etchells who was both persistent and successful.
Guy was successful because he followed the correct course of action by taking his complaint to the Information Commissioner who has the power, under FoIA, to arbitrate as to whether a decision of a public body not to disclose information is correct. That is the same power that the courts - and only the courts - have to give a definitive answer in this case. If you are really serious about being persistant and not simply intent on "getting my 'additional, discretionary service' out of them" then go to court.
-
So if you have a complaint or feel something is unjust you just shrug or shoulders and say, 'well probably Joe Bloggs has made a complaint so I won't bother cos it will cost the taxpayer'? We could debate till the cows come home about the 'waste of public resources'!
We are talking about public servants here, and its because I am a tax payer that I have every right to question their practices however unsuccessful that may prove to be.
I'm not a shrugger of shoulders type of person Graham and thankfully neither is Guy Etchells who was both persistent and successful.
Hi Parmesan
I notice from your profile that you are from Cumbria, is your local council Cumbria County Council? if so, they too charge a one pound administration fee for postal and credit/debit card processing charge. It would be interesting to hear there opinion on this.
http://www.cumbria.gov.uk/registration/otherservices/copy.asp
Andy
-
Hi Andy
Aye I live in Cumbria but no family from here so I don't use their service. However I will ask their reasons for charging what amounts to be £1 postage charge when they actually state they send stuff second class.
Their service seems a bit pants - they quote 10 days and they really should get someone to proof read the web page, it has quite a few typos!
Slack! ;D
-
Graham, it is not a case of 'getting the answer I want' it is a case of trying to get an answer that makes any sense to me.
"In answer to your request the council can confirm that, in accordance with the Local Government Act 2003 (General Power for authorities to charge for Discretionary Services), it was decided to charge an administration fee on all certificate applications made to this authority by all means of application with the exception of an application made in person. The fee of £1.00 was confirmed, in line with other AGMA (Association of Greater Manchester Authorities) authorities levying an extra fee in addition to the statutory fee of £9.00 per certificate."
The AGMA deciding amongst themselves to charge an extra fee (only one other of the Association does) does not seem to me to be a valid reason to make the charge. Maybe I'm wrong but that has not yet been satisfactorily explained to me.
"Only where the local authority provides an additional, discretionary service, is it able to charge a supplementary fee (to recover the cost) under the powers available to it under the Local Government Act 2003."
They have not yet said just what their 'additional discretionary service' is, that is what I have asked for clarification on.
But we could go on for days, so let's just agree to disagree re whether I should pursue my complaint or not. :)
-
Graham, it is not a case of 'getting the answer I want' it is a case of trying to get an answer that makes any sense to me.
"In answer to your request the council can confirm that, in accordance with the Local Government Act 2003 (General Power for authorities to charge for Discretionary Services), it was decided to charge an administration fee on all certificate applications made to this authority by all means of application with the exception of an application made in person. The fee of £1.00 was confirmed, in line with other AGMA (Association of Greater Manchester Authorities) authorities levying an extra fee in addition to the statutory fee of £9.00 per certificate."
The AGMA deciding amongst themselves to charge an extra fee (only one other of the Association does) does not seem to me to be a valid reason to make the charge. Maybe I'm wrong but that has not yet been satisfactorily explained to me.
"Only where the local authority provides an additional, discretionary service, is it able to charge a supplementary fee (to recover the cost) under the powers available to it under the Local Government Act 2003."
They have not yet said just what their 'additional discretionary service' is, that is what I have asked for clarification on.
But we could go on for days, so let's just agree to disagree re whether I should pursue my complaint or not. :)
The explanation of what is the 'additional discretionary service' is staring everyone in the face in the response:it was decided to charge an administration fee on all certificate applications made to this authority by all means of application with the exception of an application made in person.
If you care to look back at previous posts you will see that I have, several times, made the same point - including what I said in response to Rob a week ago:If posting, twice
I go into Salford Register Office looking for the birth of Joe Bloggs some time in the 1920s (say), find it in the index, write the exact details on the form and hand it to the registrar and pay £9
or I apply by post, by telephone with a debit/credit card or on-line using the procedure at http://www.salford.gov.uk/familyhistory.htm and linked pages (which includes asking the registrar to search for Joe Bloggs rather than giving the exact details of the certificate required) and pay an extra £1 for that search, which is outside the statutory duty.]
does not make it clear enough, perhaps this third time will. In simple terms, if I go and search the index myself (from a starting point of knowing the event happened in (say) the 1920s) I can find the entry and tell the registrar exactly where in the books to go. If I apply other than in person I can only tell the registrar that I think it happened in the 1920s and require him to undertake the search to find it.
Graham
-
I am still of the opinion that the fee is illegal.
Cheers
Guy
-
That's fair enough Guy but the position we have is that Salford Council is convinced that the fee is legal.
Would you not agree that the only way to obtain a definitive answer, one way or the other, is to go to court as there is no other person/body which can arbitrate?
Graham
-
I've been following this thread, somewhat bemused.
I now find that I need to send to Salford for a possible death cert.
I think I will have to bite the bullet and send the £10 :o
Kooky
-
If you sent £9 like everywhere else charges, plus an SAE, do you think they would waste taxpayers money and staff time returning it because you hadnt sent enough?
-
I now find that I need to send to Salford for a possible death cert
Why not apply to GRO at a saving of 50p ::) Or do Salford still check that the cert is the one you want before taking your money and sending out the wrong one?
-
I am not entirely sure that the cert. I'm after will be correct. Hm...
Kooky
-
I e-mailed Salford with all the details.
They replied straight away saying they had found the entry, but that the age did not match. They told me how to apply for the cert. if I wanted it.
I've no complaints about the service, for free!
Kooky
-
So here is the response to my email to John Tanner. Funny I was only wondering today when I would get a reply!
Following on from my recent communication, I have now carried out further enquiries and would be grateful if you could note the following.
The additional charge of £1:00 goes towards the additional services associated with producing and despatching a copy certificate and only applies where the application is not made in person. I feel the important point to stress is that should an application be made in person then the standard fee of £9:00 does apply. As I am sure you can appreciate there are additional services required to deal with non personal applications including the provision of stationary, the despatching of the documentation and also the receipting and processing of the payment.
I have carried out enquiries across a range of Registrars Services, not just within the Greater Manchester area but also the North West region and I can confirm that there are a number of service providers among those questioned, that have introduced an additional charge for the provision of a copy certificate.
I also arranged for a colleague to discuss the matter further with a representative from the GRO who have confirmed they do no not have any concerns relating to our charging structure as it is a matter for each individual local authority.
I accept that there are organisations who do not choose to add an additional charge for the provision of a copy certificate however as the GRO have outlined, this is for each individual authority to decide whether or not to do so. I hope that I have outlined the rationale behind why Salford make an additional charge in cases where the application is not made in person.
I trust this is to your satisfaction, however should you wish to discuss the matter further then please do not hesitate to contact me using the details outlined below.
I guess I'll just have to suck it up! ;D
-
So here is the response to my email to John Tanner. Funny I was only wondering today when I would get a reply!
Following on from my recent communication, I have now carried out further enquiries and would be grateful if you could note the following.
The additional charge of £1:00 goes towards the additional services associated with producing and despatching a copy certificate and only applies where the application is not made in person. I feel the important point to stress is that should an application be made in person then the standard fee of £9:00 does apply. As I am sure you can appreciate there are additional services required to deal with non personal applications including the provision of stationary, the despatching of the documentation and also the receipting and processing of the payment.
I gather from this that all applications in person are supplied immediately.
I also assume that no receipt is given for any money handed over.
I also assume the money or debit card payment is not processed, ie. it is not accepted, put in the till or accounted for.
Who does John Tanner think he is kidding?
These are not additional services but services carried out with every transaction.
I have carried out enquiries across a range of Registrars Services, not just within the Greater Manchester area but also the North West region and I can confirm that there are a number of service providers among those questioned, that have introduced an additional charge for the provision of a copy certificate.
So because other registrars are overcharging it is acceptable for Salford to overcharge. Sound logic.
I also arranged for a colleague to discuss the matter further with a representative from the GRO who have confirmed they do no not have any concerns relating to our charging structure as it is a matter for each individual local authority.
So who did your colleague talk to the cloakroom attendant or the Registrar General?
How many times in the last few years have the GRO been forced to admit they did not understand the legislation and they got it wrong?
Cheers
Guy
I accept that there are organisations who do not choose to add an additional charge for the provision of a copy certificate however as the GRO have outlined, this is for each individual authority to decide whether or not to do so. I hope that I have outlined the rationale behind why Salford make an additional charge in cases where the application is not made in person.
I trust this is to your satisfaction, however should you wish to discuss the matter further then please do not hesitate to contact me using the details outlined below.[/color]
I guess I'll just have to suck it up! ;D
-
Guy,
That was my point that I made to the ombudsman. Mr Tanner had already posted that same response to myself and it is this I used when contacting the pmbudsman
-
Okay, I'm not going to suck it up ;D
Guy, you are absolutely right (of course!) Unless I get my cert there and then when I turn up in person (doubtful) they will have to go through the same processes.
I have replied to John Tanner pointing this out.
I couldn't help myself!
-
It may not be general knowledge that on the 1st December 2007 all Registrars and Superintendent Registrars in England and Wales became employees of the local authorities providing the registration service, having been Statutory Officers with no legal employment status. This momentous change came about as a result of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 following many decades of campaigning by the trade unions that represented registration officers in England and Wales, The Society of Registration Officers and UNISON.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_office
meaning they were no longer appointed by the General Register Office.
That is the reason there are 2 certificate costs, £9 and £9.25 and why the Local Authorities can impose an administration charge on top of the £9 fee.
Dawn
The Local authorities also undertook a review at the same time as the GRO and decided that they could charge £9.
-
Dawn,
The fee for certificates is not set down by the local authorities it is set down in statute therefore they couldnt decide to charge £9. Now what Salford are charging the extra pound for is what they were doing before the raise for nothing and claiming this is to cover the cost of opening an envelope and sealing an envelope. The GRO fee is 9.25 to cover the 25p charge they get from their postal supplier. They dont charge for opening and sealing envelopes orproducing a receipt.
-
Following on from Guy's comments regarding the response I got from John Tanner at Salford I decided to email him again with more queries viz;
"Dear Mr Tanner
Thank you for your response to my queries. I am, however, a little confused by your first point viz;
'The additional charge of £1:00 goes towards the additional services associated with producing and despatching a copy certificate and only applies where the application is not made in person. I feel the important point to stress is that should an application be made in person then the standard fee of £9:00 does apply. As I am sure you can appreciate there are additional services required to deal with non personal applications including the provision of stationary, the despatching of the documentation and also the receipting and processing of the payment.'
From this I assume that if I turn up in person I will get my certificate straight away, there and then, the same day? Otherwise you would have to include 'the provision of stationary, and the despatching of the documentation'.
Further, whether I turn up in person or make a postal application you would have to process the payment and search for the certificate in exactly the same way. I fail to see how the two are different.
I hope you can clarify these points for me"
here is the response to that
"Thank you for your recent email, the content of which I have noted.
In answering your question about personal applications, if an individual is making a priority application and is prepared to wait and take the certificate away with them, then as outlined on our website in addition to the standard fee, a priority application fee is payable of £5.
However if an application is made in person, and the individual making the request is unable to wait or could not afford the priority application fee then in those circumstances as a gesture of goodwill the £1:00 discretionary fee is not requested. The application is dealt with usually within 2 working days and the customer has the option of it being posted out second class or returning to the office to collect it.
I hope you appreciate that we are trying to be as fair as possible to residents of the city and while I accept that some of the costs incurred are similar to that of a postal application I do feel however that if an individual has travelled to the Registrars office to request a copy certificate in person, then reserving the right to not charge the discretionary fee in these circumstances is deemed to be a fair and equitable approach to take.
I hope that this now resolves that matter.
Regards
John Tanner"