Salford Council are having a laugh aren't they?

[Parmesan]

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!  )

[GrahamH]

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

[acorngen]

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

[Parmesan]

... and their website and forms need updating!

[GrahamH]

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

[Guy Etchells]

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

[GrahamH]

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?

[Guy Etchells]

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

[GrahamH]

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