Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic: yet another GRO problem  (Read 10744 times)

Offline Mr.Brown.

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 49
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
yet another GRO problem
« on: Friday 29 April 22 17:42 BST (UK) »
Hi - this is the second time this has happened to me
I searched the GRO for a John Storey of 1841 who I knew to be illegitimate and there was only one record with no mother shown in the correct area so ordered it.
What arrived was a record for 'a' John Storey of the correct area but with a mother and father shown so obviously the wrong person.
I have queried it and they reply saying the record they sent is the one I ordered.
So the way I see it is they have the wrong info on their database for record that I ordered and so it is their fault...but no... they repeat that the record they sent is the one I ordered - SO THEY HAVE THE INFO ON THE RECORD WRONG but are just fobbing me off saying they sent what I ordered - this happened once before and I let it pass but am now I am chasing it up as it is wrong and needs sorting out.

They could have Fred Bloggs on the record and send Mary Jones if they had the info wrong but would be adamant that what they sent was what I ordered !

Can anyone tell me what I can do to get my money back or the correct record if there actually is one...Thanks, Gordon.

Offline PaulineJ

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 16,356
    • View Profile
Re: yet another GRO problem
« Reply #1 on: Friday 29 April 22 17:47 BST (UK) »
It may be that the illegitimate one wasn't registered.

MMN sometimes do not appear in the index, an unknown/not shown MMN GENERALLY shows an illegitimate birth, but not always

Pauline

is this the one that was ordered?
   STOREY, JOHN       - 
GRO Reference: 1841  J Quarter in NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE UNION  Volume 25  Page 303
Where is your john and with whom in 1841?
That child should probably be appearing in the census of that yaer
All census look up transcriptions are Crown Copyright http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
======================================
We are not a search engine. We are human beings.

Offline cuffie81

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,028
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: yet another GRO problem
« Reply #2 on: Friday 29 April 22 18:44 BST (UK) »
Personally, I'd buy the other record. Assuming the record is you ordered was the one referenced by Pauline, by the "other" record, I mean the one on page 325.

If the GRO then send you the same record again then at least you have some data that you can question them about. They couldn't really deny sending you the same record for different record references, and they would have to explain themselves. And if they are at fault, hopefully they'd sort out the correct record and, with a bit luck, reimburse you for one of the orders.

And if the GRO send you a different record, then it may suggest that it's simple an error in their index. You'd be £7 out of pocket but at least you'd have some answers, even if they aren't the ones you want or expect.
Anderson Banks Beard Brewer Caves Clarke Clinch Cooling Cuff Denton Gamble Gibson Gunn Hunt Mills Muncey Norris Notzke Reid Robinson Searle Smith Trundle Turner Weedon Wells Wilson

Offline Mr.Brown.

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 49
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: yet another GRO problem
« Reply #3 on: Friday 29 April 22 19:34 BST (UK) »

is this the one that was ordered?
   STOREY, JOHN       - 
GRO Reference: 1841  J Quarter in NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE UNION  Volume 25  Page 303
Where is your john and with whom in 1841?
That child should probably be appearing in the census of that yaer
[/quote]

Yes that is the one I ordered and the one that came is attached with mother and father so they are obviously displaying the wrong information.

My point is that the GRO are taking money and not accepting responsibility of having got it by advertising wrong information.
This is the second illegitimate John Storey I have tried and the other was an illegitimate child but not the one I searching for...
But like you say he may not have been registered but that is not the point - I have lost money and GRO are not accepting responsibility.

Offline PaulineJ

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 16,356
    • View Profile
Re: yet another GRO problem
« Reply #4 on: Friday 29 April 22 19:41 BST (UK) »
An observation would be that you must have some information as to WHY the other baseborn John Storey wasn't yours, and you COULD have specified that the one just ordered should only be sent if it was also baseborn.

I think you are blaming the GRO for your erroneous assumptions.

Pauline

All census look up transcriptions are Crown Copyright http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
======================================
We are not a search engine. We are human beings.

Offline Mr.Brown.

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 49
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: yet another GRO problem
« Reply #5 on: Friday 29 April 22 20:00 BST (UK) »
No that's not right at all.
The other I ordered was the one that they advertised on their database with no father and that is what I got.
This one is shown with NO father but as you can see on the attachment he has a mother and father shown.

I am most certainly not blaming the GRO for my erroneous assumptions and if that is what you are reading into this you are not getting the point that what I ordered a child with no father shown and what i received is a child with both parents shown!

Offline PaulineJ

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 16,356
    • View Profile
Re: yet another GRO problem
« Reply #6 on: Friday 29 April 22 20:18 BST (UK) »
It is shown with no MMN, not "no father".

There have been previous examples of where the MMN is not indexed,even when the father is named
All census look up transcriptions are Crown Copyright http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
======================================
We are not a search engine. We are human beings.

Offline Ashtone

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,141
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: yet another GRO problem
« Reply #7 on: Friday 29 April 22 20:30 BST (UK) »
Looking at the 1841 birth cert the OP attached above, I can see why the GRO has correctly indexed it as MMN (-). The mother and informant is Margaret Crudace (unmarried) but she names the father: Oswald Storey. This is an illegitimate birth. So what is the issue?

Offline Mr.Brown.

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 49
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: yet another GRO problem
« Reply #8 on: Friday 29 April 22 20:34 BST (UK) »
Quote from: PaulineJ on Friday 29 April 22 20:18 BST (UK)
It is shown with no MMN, not "no father".

There have been previous examples of where the MMN is not indexed,even when the father is named

We seem to be going around is circles here - does the record attached have a mother's maiden name of Crudance or not? Is there a maiden name on the record that the GRO are advertising...NO

Pages: [1] 2 3