8. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the event complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so we have found HMPO has already done enough to put right the impact of these events.
9. In October 2021, Ms E attempted to complete an online passport application for her daughter. However, she was unable to do so as her daughter’s name exceeded the 30-character limit. Therefore, Ms E says she had no choice but to complete a paper application form, which was more expensive. On 17 October 2021, Ms E complained to HMPO and requested a refund for the difference in the cost of the online and paper applications.
10. HMPO responded to Ms E’s first and second stage complaints on 14 December 2021, 28 March 2022, 18 August 2022 & 18 October 2022. In these complaint responses, HMPO states it is unable to consider Ms E’s request for a refund as the application was processed correctly. It also says its guidance states:
11. “we can only show up to 30 characters (including spaces) on your passport for first and middle names and a further 30 characters for surnames.
If your names do not fit in the boxes provided, you need to shorten them in a way you want them to be shown in your passport. You should then write your full name in section 8 of the form. Your full name will be shown on the observation page in your passport.”
12. On 13 January 2022, Ms E provided HMPO with screenshots of the online application process, proving the guidance is not clearly stated at any point during the process. Looking through the screenshots, I am also unable to see the guidance HMPO has quoted, nor the section 8 to include the full name of the applicant.
13. On 6 August 2024, we contacted HMPO to clarify the guidance it states is available regarding the character limit. In response to this, HMPO sent a further response to Ms E having reviewed its process. HMPO says:
14. “upon a review of the process for applying online, while this guidance is available, it is not clearly signposted or referenced during the application process. As such, it is understandable that a person may not be aware of how to correctly submit the application. HM Passport constantly reviews it process and guidance, this issue has now been fed back to our guidance team for further review with a view to potential improvements to our online process.”
15. Our Principles for Remedy say ‘where maladministration or poor service has led to injustice or hardship, the public body responsible should take steps to provide an appropriate and proportionate remedy.
The public body should:
• ideally, return complainants and, where appropriate, others who have suffered injustice or hardship as a result of the same maladministration or poor service, to the position they were in before the maladministration or poor service took place
• if that is not possible, compensate them appropriately.’
16. We are satisfied HMPO has acted in accordance with Our Principles for Remedy. I have explained my reasoning below.
17. An outcome Ms E is looking to achieve is for HMPO to review its usability of the online application process. I am satisfied HMPO has acknowledged the guidance can be better signposted and this has been passed on to the relevant team for further review.
18. Further to this, HMPO has also agreed to refund the difference between the online and paper application fee. HMPO has stated the cost of the online fee at the time was £75.50 and the postal fee was £85. Although the actual cost of a child’s online application at the time was £49.00 and the paper application was £58.50, the difference in the fees is still £9.50.
19. In the complaint form, Ms E states she paid £74.50 for the paper application therefore requires a refund of the difference of £25.50. I have asked Ms E to provide receipts for this fee, as it is not in line with the cost of a child’s paper application. The receipt shows Ms E paid the correct passport fee of £58.50, then paid an additional £16.00 for the Post Office’s Check & Send Service. This is an optional service provided by the Post Office and not HMPO. Therefore, I am satisfied HMPO has refunded Ms E the correct amount. It also awarded Ms E an additional £10 for the cost of the physical photographs needed for the paper application.
20. Finally, Ms E is seeking £500 compensation for the distress this has caused her. Although I can understand how stressful this entire situation has been for Ms E, according to our severity of injustice scale, we are unable to offer the compensation she is seeking.
21. Looking at the correspondence between Ms E and HMPO, I can see it has been a lengthy process and Ms E has provided vast amounts of evidence to support her complaint. I understand this is time consuming and has affected Ms E’s mental health.
22. I empathise with Ms E and the process she has had to go through to get her complaint properly heard, however I am satisfied HMPO has done enough to make things right in this instance. On this basis, I will not be upholding Ms E’s complaint.