Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the advice given by the Register Office about changing a surname using a Deed Poll. This is because the Council has already provided a suitable remedy. Further investigation would not achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Register Office gave incorrect advice that a Deed Poll name change could be applied on the wedding day. He says this led to him marrying in his previous name, causing distress and inconvenience. He also complains about delays in responding to his request for a refund. He seeks reimbursement and compensation for the impact on his wedding day.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council acknowledges it gave incorrect advice about the use of a Deed Poll and has apologised for this.
7. While this caused avoidable confusion and inconvenience on the wedding day, the couple were still able to proceed with the ceremony. The issue was later resolved through an amendment to the marriage certificate.
8. The Council has taken steps to put matters right by refunding the £99 correction fee and offering £50 to recognise the complainants’ time and trouble, alongside its apology. This is consistent with our guidance on remedies.
9. Given this, it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a more meaningful or substantially different outcome. Further involvement would not be a proportionate use of public resources.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council has already provided an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused. Further investigation by us is unlikely to achieve anything more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman