London Borough of Waltham Forest (21 010 743)

Category : Other Categories > Other

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 24 May 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: Mr and Ms X complained the Council carried out a marriage ceremony instead of the civil partnership ceremony they had requested. The Council was at fault when it carried out the wrong ceremony and later provided Mr and Ms X with an incorrect version of events. It has agreed to make Mr and Ms X a distress payment and if they submit a divorce or annulment application within 18 months of the date of the ceremony, refund the fees relating to the previous ceremony and pay the court fee.

The complaint

  1. Mr and Ms X complained the Council carried out a marriage ceremony instead of the civil partnership ceremony they had requested.
  2. Mr and Ms X say marriage is against their beliefs and so they have been caused stress and upset.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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’. 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)
  2. 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

  1. I spoke to Mr X and considered his view of the complaint.
  2. I made enquiries of the Council and considered the information it provided.
  3. I wrote to Mr and Ms X and the Council with my draft decision and considered their comments before I made my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

  1. Before having a marriage or civil partnership ceremony, you must give notice at your local registry office stating that you intend to get married or form a civil partnership.
  2. Following the ceremony, you will sign either a marriage or civil partnership document in front of witnesses.
  3. From April 2022, a couple who wishes to separate will be able to get a ‘no fault’ divorce or civil partnership dissolution without having to prove one of the previous grounds for divorce (such as unreasonable behaviour, adultery, desertion or separation).
  4. Couples can also seek an annulment to their marriage on the grounds it was not legally valid in the first place. One example of this would include where one or both people did not properly consent to the marriage.
  5. The current fee to apply for a divorce is £593 and the fee for an annulment is £550.

The Human Rights Act 1998

  1. The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to. This includes respect for private and family life. The Act requires all councils to respect and protect individuals’ rights.
  2. The Ombudsman’s remit does not extend to making decisions on whether or not councils have breached the Human Rights Act – this can only be done by the courts. But the Ombudsman can make decisions about whether or not councils have had due regard to an individual’s human rights in their treatment of them, as part of our consideration of a complaint.

What happened

  1. In 2020, Mr and Ms X had an appointment at their registry office to give notice of their intention to form a civil partnership. At the end of the appointment the Council officer (Officer A) asked them to check the details before they printed out the form for signing.
  2. Mr and Ms X pointed out the form was for a marriage ceremony, and they wanted a civil partnership.
  3. Officer A said there was no time to complete a civil partnership notice and they would have to make a new appointment. Mr X said the form was not printed out by Officer A and they did not sign it. In its response to our draft decision, the Council said the form was printed out and destroyed in line with its protocols because it was invalid.
  4. Around two weeks later, Mr and Ms X had a second appointment, again with Officer A. This time they completed a notice for a civil partnership form which Officer A printed out. Mr and Ms X signed the form in front of Officer A.
  5. The ceremony took place the following year. Mr X said there was a pre-ceremony interview at the venue with a Council officer who asked if they were happy to be referred to as bride and groom in the ceremony. Mr X said they agreed to this. Mr X said that at no time during that meeting were they asked to confirm the type of ceremony they wanted.
  6. Mr X said he and Ms X checked their certificate that evening and discovered they had been married, as opposed to having a civil partnership ceremony.
  7. Mr X complained to the Council. A senior officer (Officer B) in the Council’s Registrar’s Office responded and stated:
    • they had been in contact with the General Register Office who said the marriage could not be undone without a dissolution of marriage (divorce) taking place;
    • Officer A told Officer B that they asked Mr and Ms X at the start of the first appointment at the registry office to give notice if they wanted a marriage or civil partnership. They both said ‘marriage’ and then signed the notice of marriage. Officer A said that after they had signed the notice, they said they wanted a civil partnership. This was why a second meeting was held. Officer A confirmed he shredded the notice of marriage;
    • they were advised during the pre-ceremony interview that they were entering into a marriage; and
    • the word “marriage” was mentioned nine times and the word “marry” three times during the ceremony and so they could not claim they were unaware they were being married.
  8. Officer B said they would not refund the £316 cost of the ceremony because it had taken place in accordance with Mr and Ms X’s wishes.
  9. Ms X made a subject access request. The documents sent by the Council included the following:
    • an unsigned notice of marriage form;
    • a signed notice of civil partnership form; and
    • a schedule for a civil partnership (but no marriage schedule).
  10. Mr X also contacted the General Register Office and asked how long councils must keep an original signed notice of marriage on file. The General Register Office responded and said they should be kept for five years. Mr X has sent us a copy of that email.

Council’s response to our draft decision

  1. The Council responded to our draft decision and made the following points:
    • Officer A failed to act in line with procedures when they did not delete the notice of marriage entry from the electronic system, when they destroyed the paper version, following the first meeting with the couple;
    • this meant that on the day of the ceremony, the registrar checked the Council’s electronic system and found a ‘live’ electronic copy of the notice of marriage. At this point, the registrar should have questioned why the system showed there to be a notice of marriage when they had in their possession a signed paper notice of civil partnership. If they had done so, it is likely the wrong ceremony could have been prevented from taking place;
    • the notices for civil partnerships and marriages are kept in two separate parts of the electronic system. Previously officers would not check both areas, but procedures had changed as a result of this case and both areas were now checked;
    • it had carried out searches of the offices and the paper notice of marriage could not be found. This indicated Officer A had destroyed it (or never printed it out). The confusion had arisen because during Mr X’s subject access request, the undeleted electronic version was sent to him. The Council acknowledged it should have explained this earlier to both Mr X and the Ombudsman; and
    • it fully accepted it failed to address Mr and Ms X’s complaint through the corporate complaints system and apologised for this. It said this had now been addressed to prevent a reoccurrence in future.
  2. The Council also asked the Ombudsman to note that the events took place during the COVID-19 pandemic. The service was affected by staff illness because of the pandemic but it continued to provide a births, marriages and death service throughout. Staff were often reassigned to the deaths’ registration team leaving other areas short staffed. Legislation around marriages constantly changed which put strain on the service and customers as marriages were changed or postponed.
  3. The Council offered to arrange Mr and Ms X’s civil partnership with all expenses covered by the Council.

My findings

  1. When Officer A completed a notice of marriage form at the first meeting, Mr and Ms X checked the details, realised it was the wrong notice and informed Officer A accordingly. Officer A arranged another meeting to complete the correct notice. Evidence shows it is likely he then either shredded the unsigned notice or did not get to the stage of printing it. However, he failed to delete the electronic version from the system. This was fault and would lead to more errors further on in the proceedings.
  2. On the day of the ceremony, the registrar checked the electronic system and found the undeleted ‘live’ notice of marriage. The registrar failed to question why there seemed to be two live notices – an electronic one for a marriage ceremony and a paper notice for a civil partnership ceremony. This was fault.
  3. The above events took place during the COVID-19 pandemic. Staff were over stretched as many were reassigned to death registrations. Human errors were more likely to occur. Notwithstanding that, the above faults caused Mr and Ms X significant injustice because they led to them having a marriage ceremony and not the civil partnership ceremony they wanted and had paid for.
  4. When the Council’s registrar’s office first received the complaint from Mr and Ms X, it should have registered it with the Council’s corporate complaints team. Its failure to do so was fault. As a result, the subsequent complaint handling, which challenged or denied everything the couple said had happened, exacerbated the situation leading to more fault and frustration for the couple.
  5. For example, the registrar’s office informed Mr and Ms X that Officer A remembered them telling him they wanted a marriage and at the pre-ceremony interview, they were advised they were entering into a marriage, and they did not challenge this. Although I was not there, it is highly unlikely Mr or Ms X, who have remained continually firm in their wish for a civil partnership, would have made either of these statements.
  6. The situation then worsened after Mr X made a subject access request. This revealed an unsigned notice of marriage and a signed notice of civil partnership. If the registrar’s office had then provided Mr X with an explanation during its complaints responses of why its records contained these documents, as the corporate complaints team at the Council did to us during our investigation, this would have been helpful. Its failure to do so was fault.
  7. We expect the public to be able to make complaints about councils and trust those complaints will be properly and fairly investigated. The Council’s action fell far short of our expectations and is significant fault.
  8. As a result, Mr and Ms X’s wishes have not been met which has caused them distress and frustration. This has been exacerbated by the Council’s original complaint responses which failed to acknowledge the facts of what occurred and indicated it did not have due regard for the couple’s human right to a private family life. This resulted in unnecessary distress and time and trouble complaining to the Council, contacting the General Register Office, and bringing their case to the Ombudsman.
  9. When considering injustice, we try to put people in the position they would have been if the fault had not occurred. The only way to do this in this case is for Mr and Ms X to either be granted an annulment or to divorce and then enter into a civil partnership. This is what they wish to do. Our recommendations reflect these wishes.
  10. In its response to our draft decision the Council has admitted it acted with fault in the areas identified above. It has agreed to our recommendations below, apologised to Mr and Ms X and offered to hold their civil partnership and to cover their expenses. It has raised the issues with the relevant officers as a learning exercise. It has also made the following service changes:
    • officers check both parts of the electronic system to ensure there is only one live notice in the system; and
    • officers contact the GRO with details of notices which require voiding.
  11. The Council has also offered to share this complaint and investigation with the London Strategic Registration Board, which is attended by all registrars in London, as a wider learning exercise.

Back to top

Agreed actions

  1. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
    • apologise to Mr and Ms X for the distress and frustration caused by carrying out the wrong ceremony and failing to acknowledge the faults that occurred;
    • if Mr and Ms X submit their application to divorce or have an annulment within 18 months of the marriage ceremony taking place, pay them the following:
      1. the fees they paid when giving notice and for the registration service; and
      2. the court fee for an annulment or divorce at the time the application is made, which currently stands at £550 for an annulment and £593 for a divorce; and
    • pay Mr and Ms X £300 each for the distress caused by the fault identified and the time and trouble in bringing their complaint to the Ombudsman when the Council refused to accept its mistake.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. There was fault leading to injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

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.

Privacy settings