HM Passport Office

4. Mr A is making a complaint for his baby daughter, E, about the delay caused by HMPO in issuing her first British passport. He complains HMPO:

• took from February to October 2020 to grant the passport • accused Mr A of delaying the application by not sending his evidence to the correct office • said the overseas verification checks were delaying the process, despite the statistics agency in that country (PSA) confirming it had not received a verification request, and although the Home Office had already verified the documents in question.

5. He explained the delay caused him a great deal of distress and stress. He said he was separated from his wife and daughter for a significant period of time, and he missed an important period of bonding time with his daughter. He said this has affected his relationships. He said HMPO’s assertions his documentation was forged, he was not legally married, and his daughter was illegitimate caused him and his family a lot of upset.

6. Mr A wants HMPO to compensate him for the time wasted, the distress caused and the money lost during the application process.

7. Mr A applied online for his daughter’s passport on 27 January 2020. At the time, the child, who was born in another country, was living in that country with her mother.

8. Mr A posted his supporting documents to HMPO’s Peterborough office, in line with HMPO’s online advice. But on 12 March 2020, HMPO contacted Mr A to say he should have sent the documents to its Liverpool office instead.

9. As part of the application process, HMPO needed to ask the foreign authorities to verify some of the documents Mr A had submitted. On 16 March 2020, it sent the documents to the British Embassy in that country, which would then send them on to the PSA. Unfortunately, the global effects of the COVID-19 pandemic meant the Embassy was not operating, so HMPO contacted Mr A on 23 March 2020 to say there would be a delay in processing the application.

10. HMPO also had to interview Mr A in connection with his application. Unfortunately, its ability to do so was affected by the pandemic and it told Mr A this.

11. Mr A contacted HMPO several times over the next few months to request application updates. HMPO responded each time and explained the process was ongoing, but it could not give a set timescale to resolve the matter.

12. HMPO was finally able to interview Mr A on 6 August 2020. Mr A said the interviewer told him HMPO would issue the passport within the next 14 days.

13. Mr A continued to contact HMPO for updates. On 3 September 2020, he shared an email his wife had received from the foreign authorities, which said it had not received a request for document verification from the British Embassy. The next day, Mr A’s MP contacted HMPO about his case.

14. HMPO’s records show the date of document verification was 30 September 2020 and HMPO issued the passport the next day.

15. On 2 October 2020, a solicitor contacted HMPO for Mr A to say it was formally seeking to challenge HMPO’s actions in court. HMPO responded on 9 October 2020 to say, in its view, any legal challenge would have no basis. It said it had issued the passport on 1 October 2020 and explained the reasons for the delay.

16. On 9 October 2020, HMPO also responded to Mr A’s MP to explain why it had not been able to issue the passport earlier. HMPO noted the foreign authorities’ comment from 3 September that it had not received a document verification request. However, HMPO’s records showed it made the request on 20 August 2020 and could not comment on why the foreign authorities had said something different.

17. In February 2021, Mr A contacted HMPO and asked it to repay the money he had paid the solicitor to consider a legal challenge. HMPO refused this request.

19. It may be helpful to explain more about HMPO’s role to put this complaint (and our decision) in context.

20. HMPO is the only issuers of passports to UK citizens on the Crown’s behalf. It is a division of the Home Office. As part of this role, it must make sure only those applicants (including children) who are entitled to UK passports receive one.

21. Only people who have British nationality may hold a British passport. For this reason, HMPO has to carry out eligibility checks on all those who make a passport application. In some cases, particularly if the applicant is a child born outside the UK, this may involve making enquiries with authorities in other countries.

22. We can understand Mr A’s frustration at the length of time HMPO took to process his child’s application, but we have seen nothing to suggest this was a result of HMPO doing something wrong. We accept the process took longer than we would usually expect (HMPO currently says applications made in this country take at least 15 weeks), but we must place this in the context of the global situation at the time.

23. HMPO has said its ability to process the application quickly was affected by the global COVID-19 pandemic. We have no reason to disagree with this. The evidence we have seen shows HMPO could not complete key stages of the application process through no fault of its own.

24. For example, the evidence shows that, as a direct result of COVID-19 restrictions put in place by the government in that country, the British Embassy was closed between 13 March 2020 and the last week of July 2020 (with a further closure between 2 August and 20 August 2020). This severely affected HMPO’s ability to obtain the necessary verification checks for all documents (not just those relating to Mr A or his daughter).

25. Due to COVID-19 restrictions in the UK, HMPO’s offices were also closed between 20 March 2020 and 4 May 2020. This severely reduced its ability to carry out passport application interviews, a situation which affected all applicants, not just Mr A. This was clearly a frustrating situation for all concerned, but one which was outside HMPO’s control.

26. The evidence shows HMPO moved as quickly as could be expected to progress Mr A’s application after the restrictions were eased. The Embassy (which was outside HMPO’s control) told HMPO it had requested the document verification on 20 August 2020, the first day possible following the lifting of restrictions. Neither we nor HMPO have any reason to doubt this information.

27. We have noted Mr A’s observation that the Philippine authorities told Mrs A on 3 September it had not received such a request. While we cannot specifically comment on this, we have seen evidence the same authorities told the Embassy on 25 September 2020 it was experiencing delays in processing verification requests (due to reduced staffing levels), which may explain the apparent discrepancy. In any event, the Embassy made the request, not HMPO, so any delays in making the request would not have been HMPO’s fault, particularly as HMPO made the request the same day it received Mr A’s documents in its Liverpool office.

28. HMPO has also explained it reinstated its interview arrangements in application date order as soon as it was able. HMPO says it prioritised Mr A’s interview date, although we know Mr A disagrees with this. We cannot say HMPO’s actions were unreasonable.

29. We have noted Mr A’s concern that HMPO accused him of delaying the application process by sending his documents to the wrong office. We have seen little evidence to suggest HMPO made such an accusation.

30. We have seen evidence which suggests HMPO failed to be clear with Mr A about where he should send his documents (HMPO said although its online process asks the applicant to send the documents to Peterborough, as Mr A’s child was born abroad he needed to send the documents to Liverpool). While this clearly caused confusion, we have seen nothing to suggest HMPO blamed this for the delay in processing the application. HMPO has in fact consistently said the delay was the result of the global COVID-19 disruption.

31. From our contact with Mr A, we know he is unhappy HMPO needed to make such detailed checks on his documentation. He said he had supplied a lot of information to prove who he and his daughter were, but it was not enough. He said the Philippine authorities had also already verified many of the relevant documents when his wife had applied for a visa to enter the UK.

32. Although we can understand Mr A’s concern, we cannot say HMPO acted unreasonably. As we have explained, a core part of HMPO’s role is to establish a person’s entitlement to a UK passport in all cases. We realise this can sometimes be a difficult process for the person concerned, but we cannot say it is unnecessary. Nor can we say HMPO treated Mr A differently from the way it treated others in the same situation.

33. In the case of the verified documents, it is important to stress the document verification checks were required for two different purposes, although they appear to be similar. Two different organisations needed them - HMPO and (in the case of Mr A’s wife’s visa application) UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI). UKVI is a division of the Home Office responsible for the UK’s visa system. As we have explained, HMPO needed to check that Mr A’s daughter was entitled to a UK passport, whereas UKVI needed to establish whether Mr A’s wife (and daughter) were eligible for permission to enter the UK.

34. HMPO confirmed it does not have knowledge or access to the checks carried out by UKVI. Even if it did, it would not be reasonable to expect HMPO to rely on checks carried out by another organisation and for another purpose. It needed to arrange its own verification checks.

35. We have noted Mr A’s request to compensate him for the money lost during the application process and, in particular, the costs he had to meet by asking a solicitor to challenge HMPO’s actions. Because we have found no evidence of faulty practice, we do not recommend that HMPO make a compensation payment. For completeness, we should also make clear we would likely not recommend reimbursement of Mr A’s legal costs, even if we had upheld the complaint.

36. Although we can understand Mr A’s decision to employ a solicitor, we cannot say he was left with no option but to do this. Our role is to make final decisions on complaints left unresolved by UK government departments. Our service is also free. In other words, if Mr A had wished to challenge HMPO’s actions, he could have brought his concerns to us (as he has now done) without legal cost to himself.

37. In summary, we have not upheld this complaint. We accept it took far longer than usual for HMPO to process Mr A’s application, but this was for reasons outside HMPO’s control, as we have explained.

38. We realise this is unlikely to be the outcome Mr A was looking for when he approached us. We also understand this has been a difficult time for him, particularly as it involved an enforced and prolonged period of separation from his family. We thank Mr A for bringing his concerns to our attention.

1. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has decided not to uphold this complaint based on the evidence we have seen.

2. We are critical of His Majesty’s Passport Office (HMPO) and the apparent lack of explanation of its requirements, but this is not a failing. We can find no evidence to suggest HMPO had not requested the verification checks, and so the delays Mr A faced were outside HMPO’s control.

3. We understand our decision will disappoint Mr A and may cause additional distress, especially in view of his account of being separated from his wife and daughter during the first months of her life. We apologise if this is the case. The following paragraphs explain the reasons for our decision.