I am a frustrated Post Office counter clerk who is at a loss as to why the Passport Office in its wisdom issued us with templates so that we can assess the size of the facial area for correctness. What a waste of time as on many occassions where photos seem OK, the Passport Office still rejects correctly fitting photos - thus alienating our customers and our staff left vigorously scratching our heads. Maybe the powers that be in my organization should seriously consider withdrawing the partnership with the UKPA so that public ire can be solely vented in their direction - and maybe we can start regaining the goodwill of the public - Ronald Carver, Croydon, Surrey
I have been a studio photographer for nearly 50 years. I have been horrified at the amount of rejections of perfectly acceptable photographs by the Passport Office. A five-day-old baby with its mouth slightly open. Try telling a tiny baby to close it's mouth and open it's eyes. How will that prevent fraud! When a whole family had their pictures rejected when applying in person, each one for a different reason, they protested and were told that if they continued to complain they would be ejected by security. I can not find in the guidance leaflet anything about hair covering the ears, and when the application is by post, who is to say the black man was too dark, or the pasty faced baby was too light. If the size of the head is between 29mm - 34mm how can they say "Too close" or "Too far away" The new rules are not being applied correctly in many cases - Derek Hope, Sidcup, Kent
I happen to work for the Passport Office and like all other companies, when we change our methods there are bound to be some teething problems. As usual Joe Public blows this out of proportion with what seems on occasions imaginitive problems; i.e. Caroline Mair from London, who apparantly had a photo rejected on the grounds her ear was not visible. Could you please show me where it says that in the policy! Maybe we should go back to the "good old days" and just let people travel willy nilly without proper checks. Unfortunatly the world has progressed since then and this new system of biometrics is required to combat terrorists, and maybe, just maybe for once someone would praise us for being the world leader in developing this technology or otherwise go to America where the average turnaround time for a passport is six months! - Iain, Cambridgeshire
My passport application was refused on the grounds that the photographs did not comply with the regulations because my glasses were partially obscuring my eye socket. However, neither Form PLE/03 nor the list of standards given in the letter that I received from a Mr Berrecloth made any mention of the word "socket", only that the frames should not obscure the eyes themselves. They most definitely are not. Neither Mr B. nor his supervisor was able to offer any sensible explanation of the use of the term "socket", or why it should have been introduced. If it means the hole in the skull into which the eye fits, then that would obviously not be visible except in a skull, by which time I should not need a passport. Accordingly, until that time, there is nothing visible to be obscured - Michael Pater, London NW8
Like your other correspondents, I too had the experience of multi-photographs being rejected. The first was taken at the Post Office and handed over immediately to the cashier together with the completed application form. That was rejected as there was a shadow behind me, apparently on the screen. I was given my fee and recommended to go to a photography shop at the other end of town. This I did - I turned out blonde whereas my hair is quite dark, and my complexion was that of a ginger person. Sent it off, it was returned, this time because my teeth were showing. They were definitely not, there was a ghost of a shine from my lip gloss which could have been mistaken for teeth. Back I went for a third try. Again I turned out blonde and ginger, this too was returned, I forget why this time, so, not to be beaten, I went for another try. The final one was accepted though it looks nothing like me and is identical to the one before, blonde and ginger - Heather Rosser, via e-mail
I took the application for my wife's passport to the local Post Office to use the check and send service. The application was approved by the counter clerk and sent off. The photos were rejected. I received the same rejection letter as a number of your correspondents containing a long list of reasons for rejection. Apparently my wife's photo did not have suffient contrast with the background. I went back to the Post Office to complain and I was told by the counter clerk, who was obviously frustrated with the whole check and send process, that more than 50 per cent of the photographs they approved were being rejected. Having looked at the list of rejection reasons and picking one example from the list, I am at a loss to see how a PO counter clerk can decide if the photograph, if taken with a digital camera, has a resolution of greater than 4500 dpi. The good news was that I pursued the matter further with the Post Office and got my £7 back! - Derek Smorthit, Cupar, Fife
It took four attempts, the first two the photos were rejected on the grounds of being two shiny or the wrong size. The third time I was told that the witness was false given that the hand writing was to similar to the applicants. When I explained that she was accusing someone of a criminal offence and could she get the handwriting specialist to prove her thoughts I was told he was not on site and therefore the application was refused. The fourth time thankfully I was successful - four sets of photos and four appointments later. I was then amused when the passport was delivered and I had to show photo ID - a passport was acceptable. As I pointed out to the delivery person, he had the passport... - Lucinda d'Ambrumenil, London
As long as the requirement for digital photos is only for new passports, it makes sense. For us, heading to Spain within two weeks, producing new passport photos was a breeze - we used this free service (www.ePassportPhoto.com) from home snapshots - no worries mate! John Gilmor, London
Did nobody consider taking a simple fingerprint of a baby instead of all this palaver of photographs? - Louise McKay, Llanelli, Carmarthenshire
After the births of two of our children, we made several attempts to get photos that we were certain would be accepted without a second trip to the Passport Office. The result of our efforts is that we have three passports showing what appear to be identical babies. We have also noticed that passport officials both here and abroad tend to check that the number of children’s passports matches the number of children and do not appear to take the time to actually match the passports to the children. Given that these photos are all out of date within weeks or months, it would seem that the Passport Office might find more important issues to attend to - Chris Lawrence, Huntingdon, Cambs
I had my nine-year-old son photographed rather than use a photo booth. The application form was pre printed via the very good Passport Agency website, then posted off without using the checking service. A few days later a standard letter came back saying the photograph was too light (my son has pale skin and ginger hair). The photograph that I sent actually looked as good as the acceptable ones shown on the advice leaflet. The photographer redid the photographs, my Son wore a red jumper rather than a cream one, a little of which could be seen in the picture. Using the reply label provided, I returned the new photographs, and the new passport arrived virtually by return. I am none the wiser, nor were my friends, regarding the difference in the photographs. In fairness I can't really complain about the service other than to wonder what percentage of photographs are rejected and for what reasons - Paul Kennedy, Warrington, Cheshire
We had to get a passport for our two-week-old daughter. We took a photo at home so we could lie her down on a white background and get her head the right size, mouth closed eyes open etc and duly printed off some passport-photo sized copies. We drove to the Peterborough office to deposit our application as we needed a one-week turnaround, to be told that the background was not white enough (it was a shawl - we should have used a sheet apparently) and anyway her head was too small. So we then had to try and get a two-week-old baby to sit up, not dribble, hold her head up, open her eyes and look at the camera in the photo booth in the Passport Office (using the same shawl as a background). The first attempt, my hand was visible (not acceptable) the second her head flopped down (I'd have thought that worse) but after nearly an hour of fuss and bother and multiple discussions, the photo was approved by the duty manager. The photo they accepted was far worse than the one we provided and still had the shawl as a background. When the passport came back, it was virtually impossible to recognize our daughter from the photo as it is so pale. They also managed to spell her name wrong despite having her birth certificate so it was unusable. So we trekked back to the office again with two days to spare before travelling. They did send a corrected passport with 24 hours to spare and offered compensation of traveling costs. That was August and we are still waiting...... K. Cottin, Loughborough
