mfesharne

I disagree...... The point of them asking for the original passport is that they can check it is a genuine passport not a forgery....... All a certified copy proves is that it's a copy of the document provided not that it's genuine as opposed to a forgery.

If they ask for the original document & she fails to provide it they have every right to refuse the application.

Red Eric

Re the residency certificate she might have held :
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...after-24-years

It appears that was what she was applying for, if the above is correct.

Naaling

Government departments share specific information that they are entitled to under law.

I recently contacted the Australian Department of Social Security in Hobart Tasmania. I hadn't had any contact with that department for over 20 years and had never contacted that particular office before. Within 2 minutes of giving my name over the phone, the person responded with "ooh! You have been travelling a lot"

I don't think the British government is any different.

Red Eric

They also don't share information that they are not entitled to. And the Home Office staff at that level don't necessarily have access to tax or Social Security or NHS records, which might be her only other contact with the authorities.

I'm not saying that nobody from any of the authorities could find out anything more about her if they really, really wanted - just that the staff dealing with these applications in all probability won't have that authorisation.

mfesharne

Surely the point is that the Government require to see the original passport so they can ensure it's genuine and not a forgery. As she failed to supply her actual passport and instead supplied a certified copy of it they had no choice but to refuse the application.

As I said earlier, a certified copy simply proves it's a copy of the document supplied not that it's a genuine document as opposed to a forgery.

Let's remember that whoever certifies said document wouldn't be able to tell a genuine passport from a forged one.

I also don't understand why any civil servant would be expected to do other things beyond process the application. Either the applicant supplies the right documents or they don't.

If they do & all the criteria is met then they grant the application....... If they don't then they refuse it.

Which is exactly what they did.

Naaling

They may not have access to her records, but I would be surprised if immigration doesn't have access to the fact that she is registered with those organisations, and her contact details.

Red Eric

I think the point (certainly of the version I read in The Graun) was how complicated and fraught with difficulty the whole process is and how badly it had been handled on this occasion, rather than "Oh dear, she's been turned down and now she's going to be chucked out of the country"

And it was handled badly and insensitively and impersonally. I certainly expect better and expect the UK authorities to be more accessible.

macliam

Ah well, lots of discussion, eh? Shame that wasn't the case with regard to the application A five-minute call would have prevented this - either by confirming (or not) that the attested copy was adequate, or by informing her of the local document check facility or any other of the myriad possible solutions to this issue.

Still, since she comes from Holland, she'll be used to mindless bureaucracy and petty-minded officials. - as I'm sure GeniB will testify!!

mfesharne

I've no doubt that if she makes another application AND provides ALL the required original documents as per the Govt requirements her application will be successful.

BritInParis

A lot of misconceptions and incorrect assumptions on this thread, much like The Grauniad article under discussion.

Firstly the lady in question was applying for an EEA Permanent Residence card, not British citizenship. This is not about a failed citizenship application; she has yet to apply for naturalisation as she first needs to obtain an EEA Permanent Residence card confirming her immigration status in the UK.

As part of her application for permanent residence Mrs Hawkins is required to provide evidence that she is a citizen of a EEA member state, in this case, the Netherlands.

She provided a certified copy of her Dutch passport as she required the original to travel to the Netherlands to tend to her mother after her father died despite the guidance clearly states that she needs to provide the original document.

Mrs Hawkins could have supplied alternative proof of her identity and nationality, such as an national identity card or birth certificate, but it appears she did not do so.

As the Home Office was unable to confirm her nationality and therefore her right to reside in the UK under EEA freedom of movement rules she was told she should leave the UK. Given that the Home Office cannot confirm her right to be in the UK then this is the logical course of action.

Should Mrs Hawkins decide to make a fresh application, providing the required documents this time around, then quelle surprise, the application will be approved. Not that difficult to follow.

macliam

Sorry, I tried to escape this sorry tale, but the BS continues..... So,
a) You are saying that this Home Office jobsworth would be able to tell a forged document from a real one, but a qualified solicitor wouldn't. (Plus, of course, the solicitor may have access to other "proofs"
b) You are saying that her solicitor was too stupid to know that an endorsed photocopy was insufficient. Wow! I'm glad I'm not on your legal team!
c) IF submission of the documentation was the be all and end all thet you say, why do they have the clause "If you can’t provide any of these documents you must explain why and provide alternative evidence of your/their identity and nationality."

As a postscript, from another source, I understand that the "fee" for processing such an application is £1,875 - so I hardly think the woman is just moaning for moaning's sake, do you? (even if it is only the £65 for this document, plus whatever she paid her solicitor, few people would submit an incomplete application knowingly)

Cock-up, pure and simple. If the Home Office admittted this and moved on, no issue - as it is, someone needs to be held accountable.

macliam

I agree, the key phrase is "without sight of"; I'm sure that if the other 85 pages had been processed, but approval had been witheld pending visual confirmation of her passport, then there would be no story. However, this did not happen, did it.......

mfesharne

A) I'm saying the home office would indeed have trained experts & equipment that could tell a genuine passport from a forgery and indeed that a lawyer or other person qualified to certify document copies wouldn't be able to tell the difference any more than you or I could. - I'd have thought that would be obvious to most people & have no idea why you would think otherwise.

B) Read the rules as posted by someone a few posts ago. It quite clearly states they require originals & that copies were not acceptable....... Perhaps her solicitor failed to read or understand that rule....... Just as you have done.

C) I suggest you read the sentence quoted by BritInParis where it says: "Unless otherwise stated, please send original documents only. Photocopies are not acceptable. If you’re unable to send the original, please explain why. We’re unlikely to be able to approve your application without sight of the original document"

Your postscript: You'd think that as it costs that much, she or her lawyer would have read & complied with the rules but it appears neither did that so therefore the fault lies with one or both of them.

It was their error & they must accept the blame & bear the additional cost incurred.

macliam

You really do pick and choose you quotes, don't you? Did you check the link I posted to the actual document? Why do they accept that original documents may not be submitted? What do you think the clear phrase "without sight of" means?

This is a rubber-stamping job, no "experts" are involved - passport included , stamp. No passport, durrgh, no process!

It's just a bureaucratic cock-up by a faceless civil servant which the Home Office are trying to defend. Where a fee is payable, I don't think the phrase "It was their error & they must accept the blame & bear the additional cost incurred." is an acceptable excuse for the lack of clarity or contact.

mfesharne

As you say: "No passport no process"

She failed to provide the document so her application was refused which to me is perfectly reasonable.

Had she provided all the requested documentation in the original I'm sure it would have been approved.

But tell me; How do you know it's a simple "rubber stamping job" & that no experts are involved & that no-one authenticates or may possibly authenticate the submitted passport? - I'd certainly be interested to see the guidlines on that if you can provide them?

My own guess is they probably have the people and/or equipment that can test any passport that may cause concern as to it's authenticity........ but of course, if no original passport is supplied it can't be proven to be genuine or not.