Salford Council are having a laugh aren't they?

[Guy Etchells]

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

[GrahamH]

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

[Parmesan]

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? 

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.

[GrahamH]

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

[Parmesan]

Thanks Graham, will do.  No harm done, I'll just wait for the 'get lost' response 

(They did resolve a banking issue for me 

[Guy Etchells]

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

[GrahamH]

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

[Parmesan]

I have now sent an email to the GRO.  Hopefully will we get a definitive answer.

[GrahamH]

I have now sent an email to the GRO.  Hopefully will we get a definitive answer.

I hope so - cheaper than going to court