Missing GRO Death - 1945

[jonw65]

Here he is
CHARLES, WILLIAM       
Age at Death (in years): 56 
GRO Reference: 1945  M Quarter in ILFORD  Volume 04A  Page 523

Yes, Charles indexed as the surname by GRO

[MollyC]

And William Charles is not in FreeBMD.  They seem to have lost Butler somewhere in the re-indexing.

Suggest you report an error on this entry to correct the surname and the forenames, see what happens!

[RW1]

Thank you so much. Would never have found this without your help.

[MollyC]

suggest:
William C Butler married Alice S Hills
JunQ 1917  Stepney  1c  453

(There is also a marriage of a Charles W in 1916, spouse surname in italics, but sorting through dodgy page numbers, she was named Violet.)

[RW1]

Yes, I've found them on the 1939 Register at the same address as the Administration. They have two daughters.

Correct marriage is HILLS.

[AntonyMMM]

Here he is
CHARLES, WILLIAM       
Age at Death (in years): 56 
GRO Reference: 1945  M Quarter in ILFORD  Volume 04A  Page 523

Yes, Charles indexed as the surname by GRO

Very well found - that will be an interesting entry to look at ( to work out why they don't think an amendment is necessary !)

[Dundee]

This is my favourite one where the answer was...."Investigated No amendment required" and "Indexed data not available."

My submission in 2021 was.... All of the December quarter birth registrations in 1902 for the district of Neath are missing from the index (about 400 births)

Debra 

[RW1]

I have made a third submission - this time an amendment rather than a missing one - and we'll see what response is made by the GRO.

Bearing in mind that the GRO probably works on the same basis as others with customer service teams (ie as long as 80% / insert your own % here) of customer contact results in no further contact) that is the quality of service we have to accept. In the private sector (fuel companies, for instance) they will eventually offer you a "shut-up-and-go-away" minimal gratuity and, if that fails, challenge you to go to the relevant ombudsman, etc.

What they won't do, is change their processes.

[AntonyMMM]

They "should" have looked at the entry when you submitted the original error report ( and they responded with "no amendment required"), but who knows.

Have you obtained a digital image to see what their copy of the record actually says  ?

I know they just dismiss a huge proportion of supposed errors or missing entries that are based on the on-line index not matching the "old" version (as seen on FreeBMD ect)  because the two don't, and shouldn't, always match due to the different indexing rules used.

It may be they have just dismissed this on that basis without really investigating.

Let us know what happens