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
