Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

London Borough of Barnet (18 005 894)

Category : Other Categories > Elections and electoral register

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 30 Aug 2018

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s error removing him from the electoral roll. This is because an investigation is unlikely to add to that already carried out by the Council.

The complaint

  1. Mr X complains the Council removed his name from the electoral roll in error.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
  2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
  • the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement
  • it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council
  • it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A (6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered the information provided by Mr X which includes the Council’s response to his complaint. He commented on the draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr X discovered his name was missing from the electoral register. He contacted the Council and re-registered before an impending election.
  2. He complained to the Council. The Council says it runs software to identify possible duplicate entries on the electoral register. It says staff then assess the possible duplicates and decide whether the entry is a copy and should be removed.
  3. The Council says the software programme identified a possible duplicate entry as Mr X and his son have the same/similar names. The entry was assessed by a member of staff. Unfortunately, they failed to check previous records which would have identified the entries for Mr X and his son were for separate people. Mr X’s name was removed from the register.
  4. Mr X noticed he had not received a polling card as other members of his household had. He contacted the Council. Mr X registered again online.
  5. The Council apologised for this, stating it was a mistake.
  6. Mr X is not satisfied with the apology and says he will have to constantly check that he is on the electoral roll.


  1. The Council says it has spoken to all staff involved. It has also spoken to the provider of the software used to identify duplicate entries. It says the removal of Mr X from the electoral register was due to human error.
  2. I understand Mr X is concerned about a possible repetition of this error. However, he identified the problem and contacted the Council. The matter was corrected before any significant repercussions occurred. Mr X could vote in the upcoming election. Therefore, while this may have been inconvenient, I do not consider that he suffered any significant personal injustice. The Council has apologised for the staff error and I consider this to be an appropriate remedy to his complaint. Any further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.
  3. Mr X wants the Council to ensure his details will not be removed from the electoral register in error again. And to identify the causes of the error.
  4. The Council has investigated the complaint. It has spoken to the software provided and interviewed all staff involved. I am satisfied with the Council’s explanation that the mistake was down to human error,
  5. The law requires the electoral registration officer at the Council to carry out an annual canvass of all households in the borough every year. This is to check the information on the electoral register is accurate. Also, Mr X can check with the Council at any time to see if his name is on the electoral register if he wants to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely that further investigation will add to that carried out by the Council or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page