Summary: Ms X said the Council’s actions, after she changed her name, saw her vote rejected at four elections. We found the Council repeatedly failed to act in line with the law, which denied Ms X the opportunity to update her postal vote information. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £300 in recognition of her resulting distress.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about the Council’s failures over three years to correctly deal with her name change for electoral registration and voting purposes. This led to rejection of her votes in four elections before the Council told her there was a problem with her postal vote.
2. Ms X said the Council failed to appreciate the seriousness of what happened, took too long to investigate her concerns, and provided inaccurate and inadequate complaint responses. Ms X said being denied her right to vote in four elections caused much shock and distress. Ms X also said it took unnecessary time and trouble getting answers from the Council about what had happened.
3. Ms X wanted the Council to admit its failings and to apologise for how badly impacted she had been by what happened. Ms X also wanted the Council to review its practice and procedures to ensure similar problems did not arise in the future.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)
7. We cannot investigate a complaint where the body complained about is not responsible for the issue being raised. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(1), as amended)
8. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I:

• considered Ms X’s written complaint and supporting papers;
• talked to Ms X about the complaint;
• asked for and considered the Council’s comments and supporting information about the complaint;
• shared Council information with Ms X; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Ms X and the Council and considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

10. Councils are responsible for preparing and keeping a Register of Electors (‘the Register’) that shows people able to vote in elections. People need to re-register if, for example, they change their name. To change a name on the register, people may either use a change of name form or make a new application to register.
11. People may vote at elections in person, by post, or by proxy (someone acting for them with their consent). The council decides applications to vote by post and proxy. The council must keep a list of absent voters (people with a postal or proxy vote) and a control record of their ‘personal identifiers’. One ‘personal identifier’ is the voter’s signature. The absent voters list is separate from the Register although computer software used by councils may link the two records. The council must contact absent voters every five years and ask them to refresh their ‘control’ signature.
12. People can appeal to the county court if the council, for example, refuses their registration application or refuses their application for a postal vote. We normally expect people to use their right of appeal to the courts if they have a complaint about such council decisions (see paragraph 6).
13. Councils must appoint a Returning Officer to be responsible for running an election including handling postal and proxy votes. Returning Officers carry out a specific statutory function in a personal capacity and do not act for their council. The actions of Returning Officers are not therefore ‘administrative functions’ of the council and so are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction (see paragraph 7).
14. The Returning Officer must carry out a ‘personal identifier check’ on postal votes. This means checking information, including the signature, in the voter’s postal voting statement matches that held in the council’s control records. If they do not match, the postal vote is rejected.
15. The Electoral Commission says Returning Officer should follow the ‘Commission and Forensic Science Service guidance on signature checking’ when considering postal voters’ signatures. The guidance refers to people changing their name after the grant of a postal vote and before completing a postal voting statement in an election. The guidance says it is the voter’s responsibility to tell the council of the name change and to supply a new control signature. The guidance also says, “there may still be parts of the signature that can be compared (e.g. the first name if used), but signatures in different names with no points of comparison should be rejected.”
16. Councils must, within three months of an election, tell postal voters if their vote failed the personal identifier check and was rejected. The council may ask the voter to provide a fresh signature where a rejection arises because postal voting statement and control signatures do not match. The voter then has six weeks to update their signature and keep their right to vote by post. The council must also tell the voter when removing their ‘absent vote’ from the list because they have not provided a fresh signature. The voter has a right of appeal to the county court against the decision to remove their absent vote from the list.

What happened

17. In February 2018 Ms X emailed the Council asking what she needed to do change her name on the Register. Ms X’s email set out her postal address and both her name as then on the Register and her new name. In reply, the Council emailed Ms X saying the easiest way to effect the change was to apply online. The Council provided a link to the Government’s website and said Ms X would need her national insurance number and date of birth. Ms X said she did not receive the Council’s email.
18. The Council provided screenshots showing receipt of an online registration application from the Government website for Ms X a few days later. The website application included ‘yes’ in response to ‘postal vote request’. The Council said the Government website would have automatically sent Ms X a postal vote application. The Council also sent Ms X a letter, using her new name, referring to her recent registration application and saying she “[did not] need to do anything else” (‘the Letter’). Ms X said she did not make an online application or receive a postal vote application. Ms X received the Letter.
19. In May 2018, there was a local election. Ms X received (in her new name), and used, a postal vote in the 2018 election. Ms X’s vote was rejected as her signature on her postal voting statement did not match the control signature held by the Council. The Council had no evidence it sent Ms X a postal vote rejection (‘PVR’) letter within three months of the election. Ms X said she received no PVR letter in 2018.
20. However, the Council said its officers noted Ms X’s name change. The Council provided a screenshot of Ms X’s electoral registration case record to show it ‘created’ a postal vote application in May 2018 and a reminder in June 2018. The Council said it sent the application and reminder independently of the May 2018 election and not as part of the statutory ‘rejection of a postal vote’ procedure (see paragraph 16). Ms X said she received neither the application nor reminder letter.
21. In 2019, Ms X received (in her new name) and used a postal vote at two separate elections. Ms X’s votes were rejected on ‘signature’ grounds. The Council had no evidence it sent Ms X a PVR letter after the 2019 elections. The Council also confirmed it sent no PVR letters for any rejected postal vote after the December 2019 general election. The Council explained that, after December 2019, it was dealing with the Register annual canvass; preparations for a 2020 election; and then the impact of COVID-19.
22. At a May 2021 election, Ms X’s postal vote (which used her new name), was rejected for the fourth time on signature grounds following her change of name. In June 2021, the Council sent Ms X a PVR letter saying her postal voting statement signature did not match her control signature. The Council sent Ms X a postal vote application and asked her to complete, sign and return it within six weeks to prevent cancellation of her postal vote.
23. Ms X returned the application, including her new signature. Ms X also sought an explanation for what had happened and why it had taken the Council three years to notice the differing signatures. Ms X also questioned why the Council did not ask for a new signature in 2018 rather than send the Letter saying, ‘she did not need to do anything else’ (see paragraph 18). Ms X said the Council left her disenfranchised for years because of its failure to send her PVR letters about her signature.
24. The Council said it was sorry Ms X had not received the postal vote application from the Government website. It also said the Letter concerned the Register, which was separate from the postal vote procedure. It was the voter’s responsibility to reapply for a postal vote if they moved home or changed their name. It apologised if the difference between the Register and postal voting was not clear. The Council did not know why Ms X did not receive its 2018 correspondence. And, it had no evidence to show it sent Ms X a PVR letter after the 2019 elections. The Council said its decision not to send PVR letters after the December 2019 general election was wrong, for which it apologised. The Council said it was now issuing postal vote rejections letters after elections.
25. The Council, after liaising with the Electoral Commission, amended the letter it sends in response to a name change on its Register. The letter it sends now includes, “if you have a postal vote, please get in touch to request a new application form to update your signature”. The Council also added that information to its website page under ‘register to vote – change of name’.

Consideration

The alleged online application

26. A key issue in Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s administration of her postal vote concerned the alleged online application to change her name on the Register. Ms X’s position was clear: she did not apply online to change her name and only received the Letter in response to her February 2018 email to the Council. Neither Ms X’s email nor the Letter expressly referred to postal voting. The Council provided evidence it both emailed Ms X in February 2018, advising that she make an online application, and later received a ‘website application’. These events took place over four years ago and I did not consider further investigation was likely to resolve the party’s differing positions about an online application. And, based on the available evidence, I could not find the Council did not receive, whatever act or omission may have triggered it, a ‘website application’ showing a change of name for Ms X.
27. The information received by the Council via the Government website included ‘postal vote request: yes’ and Ms X’s email address. The Council understood this would have triggered a postal vote application from the website to Ms X, but Ms X was clear she received no such application. However, Ms X said the Council should have expressly asked her to update her postal vote signature when she changed her name on the Register. That would be good administrative practice. And the Council now expressly refers to postal vote when issuing change of name letters (see paragraph 25). However, there was no requirement for the Council to tell people they needed to update a postal vote signature when changing their name on the Register. I therefore found the Council was not at fault in not referring to postal voting in its February 2018 email (which Ms X said she did not receive) nor the Letter.

The rejected postal votes

28. However, the law needed the Council to issue PVR letters after Ms X’s postal votes were rejected on signature grounds at the 2018 and 2019 elections. There was no evidence the Council sent Ms X a PVR letter after these elections. And the Council admitted it sent no PVR letters to any unsuccessful postal voter after the December 2019 general election. I therefore found the Council at fault in failing, three times, to send Ms X a PVR letter in line with the law. And the failure to apply the law and send a PVR letter affected all unsuccessful postal voters at the December 2019 general election.
29. When the Council finally sent Ms X a PVR letter in June 2021, she responded quickly. I had no reason to doubt Ms X would have responded positively and provided a new signature if she had received a PVR letter after any of the 2018 and 2019 elections. Telling postal voters their vote was rejected aims to stop them repeating any error in their postal voting statement and so losing their vote in future elections. Here, Ms X was denied three opportunities to secure her postal vote after her name change. The repeated failure to comply with the law and issue a PVR letter would likely have added to Ms X’s distress and frustration with what happened.
30. The Council referred to Ms X not taking the opportunities in February and May 2018 to update her signature (see paragraphs 18 and 19). On balance, I found the evidence sufficient to show the Council had written to Ms X in 2018. However, given Ms X’s quick and positive response in 2021 to the Council’s PVR letter, I also found, on balance, she did not receive the Council’s 2018 correspondence.

Other matters

31. Ms X questioned the impact of rejected postal votes on election results. And that as women were more likely than men to change their names, issues with postal vote signatures would have a greater impact on women voters. The available evidence did not indicate the Council’s failure to issue PVR letters affected election results between 2018 and 2021. The evidence also showed postal vote rejections on signature grounds were balanced between names attributable to men and women.
32. Ms X also found the Council’s complaint handling unsatisfactory, including the time it took to respond. We consider 12 weeks should normally give enough time to complete a council complaints procedure. Here, the Council took about 13 weeks. Ms X also pointed to the Council adding information as she escalated her complaint rather than its first response being comprehensive. I recognised Ms X’s frustration. However, correspondence evolves as questions are asked and answered. Overall, I did not find the Council fell below acceptable administrative standards in handling Ms X’s complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

33. I found the Council at fault in repeatedly failing to send Ms X a PVR letter after the 2018 and 2019 elections. I was satisfied the Council was aware of its legal responsibilities to send PVR letters and was now doing so. The Council had also improved its published information about name changes and postal votes. Both its website and ‘change of name’ letter now draw attention to the need for postal voters to update their signatures when changing their name on the Register.
34. This was not a case where Ms X could return to the position she should have been in but for the Council’s fault: elections had taken place and Ms X’s votes rejected. However, Ms X should, at most, have had but one postal vote rejected before the signature issue was resolved. Finding the Council had repeatedly failed to issue any PVR letters until June 2021, would have substantively added to Ms X’s frustration and distress.
35. To put matters right in a proportionate, appropriate and reasonable way, the Council agreed, within 30 working days of this statement, to:

• write to Ms X to apologise for the frustration and distress caused by its repeated failure to send her postal vote rejection letters after elections in 2018 and 2019; and
• pay Ms X £300 in recognition of her distress and lost opportunities to provide an updated signature after the 2018 and 2019 elections.

36. The Council also agreed to send the Ombudsman evidence of compliance with paragraph 35 within 40 working days of this statement.

Back to top

Final decision

37. I completed my investigation, finding fault causing injustice, on the Council agreeing the recommendations at paragraphs 35 and 36.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman