| |
Home > Publications > Selected cases — Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - November 1997 - April 1998 > C.654/96
Summary of Selected Cases
OFFICE OF NATIONAL STATISTICS
Mishandling of corrections to birth and marriage certificates
Matters considered:
The handling by the General Register Office (GRO) (now part of the Office of National Statistics) of Mr and Mrs R's application to correct the registration of Mrs R's birth, their marriage, and their children's births.
Summary of case
In 1937 Mrs R's birth was registered in the name of Miss Q, as the child of Miss K Q. The name of her father, Mr S, was not recorded. In October 1940 Miss K Q married Mr T. In 1948 Mr and Mrs T signed a statutory declaration leading to Miss Q's birth being re-registered, showing her to be the natural child of Mr T. On 18 October 1992, after researching her family history, Mrs R applied to have her birth registration corrected by rescinding the earlier re registration and having Mr S recorded as her natural father, and for consequential amendments to the register entries of her marriage and her children's births. A senior officer told Mrs R that her only option was to apply to the court for a declaration of parentage. Mrs R's solicitors wrote to GRO on 21 January 1993 asking them if her birth could be re-registered without court proceedings if evidence that could be available, including DNA test results and an affidavit from Mrs T, showed that Mr T was not her father. The same officer replied that that would not satisfy the statutory requirements. On 26 October 1994 the court declared that Mrs R was Mr S's child. Mrs R's birth was re-registered again but GRO then asked Mr and Mrs R for a statutory declaration, which they later agreed was unnecessary, for the correction to the registration of their marriage. GRO corrected the register entries for the children's births in March 1996.
Findings
I found that GRO misdirected Mrs R and her solicitors about the requirements for correction to the registration of her birth which limited her options prematurely. GRO's piecemeal and inflexible approach to the consequential amendment of the marriage and children's birth entries led to delay and unnecessary expenditure for Mr and Mrs R in instructing solicitors, writing letters and making telephone calls.
Remedy
The Registrar General offered an ex gratia payment of £1,500 to compensate Mr and Mrs R for the additional trouble to which they were put.
Previous < Contents > Next
Full text of this investigation
|
 |
