|
First problem.
I can find my dad, Fred Sokes, Glossop, b 1925.
Ref 5903F/017/4. The preview says 2 others plus 3 closed.
I put in the refs above but they show only my dad, no parents or siblings, and no neighbours.
Ah, his parents are "Stkes" at Ref 5903F/004/1 and 2, Fred and Martha.
Entering this ref pulls up the rest of households on that street. OK.
So, I assume my dad's ref of 017 is a mistranscription and should be 004.
2nd problem.
The records of Fred Jnr, Fred Snr and Martha all agree on 2 others and 3 closed. Total family therefore 6 people. My knowledge tells me there should only be 5 people. My dad, his parents and two siblings. His eldest sibling is married and elsewhere. So, who is this sixth person? I did wonder if it was my granddad's illegitimate unmarried half-aunt but she is elsewhere. Then I thought the record count might include my dad twice, due to the wrong ref number of 017 instead of 004. I bet that is the answer, but am loathe to spend £6.95 just to prove it, as I will have learnt nothing other than the register is rubbish.
3rd problem.
The 3 closed records should be only two - my dad and his sister, who died in 2004 and 2006 respectively. But my dad's record is viewable. Has some keen person already submitted his death cert and opened the record? I think not, my dad must therefore be recorded twice, once as viewable, once as closed. So much for Data Protection.
So the three closed records would appear to be my dad (for one of his refs), auntie Ethel and Uncle Jim.
But uncle Jim (b 1923) died in 1988 (heart attack while knocking down the outside lav). So his record should be open even though he was born less than 100 years ago. I appreciate I can apply to have auntie Ethel's record opened, at a cost, but why should I have to pay to have Uncle Jim's opened when it should already be open? I don't have his death cert and don't want it. I remember his death, I went to his funeral. It might be nice to have it for completeness, but it isn't needed.
Is there some way I can get the record opened for free, given that it should have been matched with his death prior to 1991?
Oh, and a fourth problem - is there a mechanism for reporting the mistake in the name spelling and my dad's reference? I can't see anything on the system.
This was the first family I looked for and am dreading looking for more if this is the standard we are getting.
Thanks for reading my rant.
|
|
You have to open the image first and then at the bottom right of the screen there is a link to "report image error". A box comes up that you can tell them about anything you think is wrong.
As for your uncle's record, if you send them the GRO reference from before 1990 for his death then they will check it and let you know within 10 days whether or not they will open the record for you.
Kath. x
|
|
Hi Kath
Do you mean I have to buy credit to open the image? I can't see anything on the preview screen.
Good to know about the GRO ref only for deaths pre-1991. I will do that.
|
|
Kath, they won't accept a GRO ref for deaths. It has to be the cert. I don't see why I should have to pay for this to tell them to open a record that should be open. They say they need a "D" code for him.
They admit my dad is recorded twice, once open. But they won't remove the open record. Never mind that my dad is still alive (well, they don't know he isn't, he would be 90 which is perfectly feasible). Nor do they know that the open record gives his employment details. It just so happens that my dad was taken to court by the firm he worked for, and as a result was sacked. He would not like anyone to be able to trace that, and my mum will be scared someone is going to taunt her about it. Remind me, what is the purpose of the 100-year rule? Something about protecting people? But FMP won't remove it cos it has a "D" code.
Seems they have corrected the surname Stkes to Stokes, without any thanks or notification..
Wonder if they have correct Dagruffolino to Wilhelmina, as I reported to them.
They should be paying ME for reporting these errors.
Margaret xx
|
|
I have previewed two records, one is my mother's family which should be Gardiner but comes up as 'Gadiner', and one is the previous occupants of my house which was Loynes but comes up as Joynes.
So two out of two incorrect so far...
I then look for my husband's grandmother, but her house is missing from the address list. She lived at no.90, but on her street there is nothing between 68 and 94.
So it's now three out of three.
It doesn't fill me with confidence that if I pay to look at the actual records, I will get the correct information - I know these are transcription errors, but if they are not checked, then what checking is done that the correct pages are linked to them?
|
|
The entries have been transcribed at least twice. Once from the householders forms onto the lists, then in the last year from the handwritten lists onto the data base. It's not surprising that errors have crept in.
Have you previewed every house number on the street for grandmother? In any event, might she have arranged to move to stay with family?
|
