Graham Murray wrote:

Are you looking for problems? There are very strict rules now as what is a
suitable photo for a passport.

If your photograph follows their published rules to the letter, are
they allowed to reject it?

They can reject it if they feel it isn't suitable. I have tended to use
stores that take your "passport approved" photo on the basis that they,
unlike a machine, are likely to retake them for free if they were rejected.

"IanAl" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 22:50:04 +0000, "Nick"
wrote:

"Mick" wrote in message
...

Thanks everyone very much, I have filled in the online renewal form.
Next problem is it seems I cannot take the new photos myself, and print
on
my inject printer!

Are you looking for problems? There are very strict rules now as what is a
suitable photo for a passport. I took one in a photo booth in Woolworths
which was rejected by the pre-check at the Post Office.

Rather than risking a second time I went to a local chemist who was used
to
taking such photos.

The photo-booth type are perfectly all right if you follow the rules.
Get an application form in the Post Office - there's a leaflet
included explaining exactly what they want. (The photos don't need to
be countersigned if your appearance hasn't changed too much since your
last passport.) The Post Office do a check and send service for a few
pounds extra.


Yes, I did exactly that. I knew what the requirements were but the clerk at
the Post Office using that service rejected it.

I could hardly say that I had taken the photo in a booth in Woolworths and
it should be OK. I wasn't going to waste my money a second time and went to
a chemist who took it for about £5.

As the other poster said, if the PO had rejected it the second time I could
have gone back and, no doubt, got the photo retaken.

I am hardly complaining - just pointing out what happened to me. Of course,
the Post Office service meant that at least I knew immediately that the
photo wasn't acceptable.

Nick

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:25:13 +0000, "Nick"
wrote:

"IanAl" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 22:50:04 +0000, "Nick"
wrote:

There are very strict rules now as what is a
suitable photo for a passport. I took one in a photo booth in Woolworths
which was rejected by the pre-check at the Post Office.

Rather than risking a second time I went to a local chemist who was used
to
taking such photos.

The photo-booth type are perfectly all right if you follow the rules.
Get an application form in the Post Office - there's a leaflet
included explaining exactly what they want. (The photos don't need to
be countersigned if your appearance hasn't changed too much since your
last passport.) The Post Office do a check and send service for a few
pounds extra.


Yes, I did exactly that. I knew what the requirements were but the clerk at
the Post Office using that service rejected it.

I could hardly say that I had taken the photo in a booth in Woolworths and
it should be OK. I wasn't going to waste my money a second time and went to
a chemist who took it for about £5.

As the other poster said, if the PO had rejected it the second time I could
have gone back and, no doubt, got the photo retaken.

I am hardly complaining - just pointing out what happened to me. Of course,
the Post Office service meant that at least I knew immediately that the
photo wasn't acceptable.

Post Office clerks don't always know what they are talking about:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...passport14.xml

"Passport photograph of girl's bare shoulders rejected 'as it may
offend'

"A five-year-old girl's passport application was rejected because her
photograph showed her bare shoulders.

"Hannah Edwards's mother, Jane, was told that the exposed skin might
be considered offensive in a Muslim country."

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 22:50:04 +0000, "Nick"
wrote:

Are you looking for problems? There are very strict rules now as what is a
suitable photo for a passport. I took one in a photo booth in Woolworths
which was rejected by the pre-check at the Post Office.

Did the Post Office clerk say why he was rejecting it? Did you ask?

--
Alasdair.

"Anthony R. Gold" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:25:13 +0000, "Nick"
wrote:

Yes, I did exactly that. I knew what the requirements were but the clerk
at
the Post Office using that service rejected it.

I would have tried a second Post Office before declaring myself beaten but
that option may only be usefully available to city dwellers.

And most Post Offices in cities have substantial queues. It is true that it
didn't occur to me - it didn't occur to me and I really couldn't have been
bothered. It only cost me an extra 5 pounds.

Nick

"IanAl" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:25:13 +0000, "Nick"
wrote:

"IanAl" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 22:50:04 +0000, "Nick"
wrote:

There are very strict rules now as what is a
suitable photo for a passport. I took one in a photo booth in Woolworths
which was rejected by the pre-check at the Post Office.

Rather than risking a second time I went to a local chemist who was used
to
taking such photos.

The photo-booth type are perfectly all right if you follow the rules.
Get an application form in the Post Office - there's a leaflet
included explaining exactly what they want. (The photos don't need to
be countersigned if your appearance hasn't changed too much since your
last passport.) The Post Office do a check and send service for a few
pounds extra.


Yes, I did exactly that. I knew what the requirements were but the clerk
at
the Post Office using that service rejected it.

I could hardly say that I had taken the photo in a booth in Woolworths and
it should be OK. I wasn't going to waste my money a second time and went
to
a chemist who took it for about £5.

As the other poster said, if the PO had rejected it the second time I
could
have gone back and, no doubt, got the photo retaken.

I am hardly complaining - just pointing out what happened to me. Of
course,
the Post Office service meant that at least I knew immediately that the
photo wasn't acceptable.

Post Office clerks don't always know what they are talking about:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...passport14.xml

"Passport photograph of girl's bare shoulders rejected 'as it may
offend'

"A five-year-old girl's passport application was rejected because her
photograph showed her bare shoulders.

"Hannah Edwards's mother, Jane, was told that the exposed skin might
be considered offensive in a Muslim country."


That is true of any minor official. I could have taken my chances and sent
the application myself to the Passport Office - clearly the inconvenience
was minor.

By submitting one's application to a minor official one is accepting that
they will make stupid decisions where there are judgements are to be made.

They are not paid as much as solicitors and therefore one cannot reasonably
expect them to spend half an hour discussing minor points of presentation in
a photo.

I would have thought that the answer would be for the clerk to say that in
my opinion it is not acceptable - but you are welcome to send it up to the
Passport Office if you don't accept my decision.

It does seem weird should a photo which is acceptable to UK standards of
morality should be vetted by Shia standards. People might be warned about
such problems but it does seem strange that such vetting should be applied
here.

But this doesn't really relate to my situation.

Nick

"Alasdair" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 22:50:04 +0000, "Nick"
wrote:

Are you looking for problems? There are very strict rules now as what is a
suitable photo for a passport. I took one in a photo booth in Woolworths
which was rejected by the pre-check at the Post Office.

Did the Post Office clerk say why he was rejecting it? Did you ask?

There is an illustration in the booth of where the head should be in
relation to the frame - and naturally it is very difficult to judge
precisely looking in to the reflective glass where the flash and the lens
is. It would be better if there was something like a scanner where the image
was taken once by a computer and then if I was in the right position I would
tell the machine to take the picture for good.

She had a template which overlaid the picture and indicated where the head
should be.

My head extended out of the supposed head position in the template.

She said that I was leaning forward.

My immediate response was that it was not my fault that I had a big head.

Clearly not a problem with the little girl!

I accepted the situation and I decided that to go back and redo the
photograph in a booth I might end up with the same thing happening again.
The photo in the chemist was about £5 rather than, I think, £3.40 in the
booth.

So less aggro and a reasonably satisfied customer.

Nick

In article ,
says...
There is an illustration in the booth of where the head should be in
relation to the frame - and naturally it is very difficult to judge
precisely looking in to the reflective glass where the flash and the lens
is.


This is because the photographs are now being scanned and DNA matched
with a database in birmingham and a number of other databases.

-colin-

Nick wrote:

I am hardly complaining - just pointing out what happened to me. Of course,
the Post Office service meant that at least I knew immediately that the
photo wasn't acceptable.

Well, you knew that a post office clerk didn't think it was acceptable.
I wonder how much training s/he had been given? What was the stated
reason for rejection, as a matter of interest?

Ian

"Ian" wrote in message
ps.com...

Nick wrote:

I am hardly complaining - just pointing out what happened to me. Of
course,
the Post Office service meant that at least I knew immediately that the
photo wasn't acceptable.

Well, you knew that a post office clerk didn't think it was acceptable.
I wonder how much training s/he had been given? What was the stated
reason for rejection, as a matter of interest?

I seem to recall (I have deleted the thread) that I have said that she
produced a template and that she demonstrated that my head didn't fall
within the grid on the template in which my head was supposed to fall.
Presumably the application form could have a similar grid for one to check
the photo against.

It has become quite obvious that with the new rules (I am not sure where
they came from) which are more specific about the layout of the photo it is
virtually impossible to guarantee that a booth will provide a satisfactory
photograph.

I had no independent indication that the photo was acceptable - after all a
booth can't speak and I trusted the clerk that her decision was correct.

But if I didn't as someone else has said I could have gone to another post
office - and presumably the higher authority is the Passport Office. One
would imagine that the Post Office are likely to possibly apply the rules
more strictly than the Passport Office as they are merely acting on behalf
of the Passport Office - and the Post Office are likely to say that they are
applying the rules more strictly than the Passport Office.

I might point out that other than being mildly inconvenienced by this I just
went to the chemist up the road who I am sure was used to doing such photos,
paid my extra fiver and then returned to the same post office - and the
application went through.

I have no problem with that.

It is others who do.

But I would point out that anyone can send their application direct to the
Passport Office - but there are other things that they might have left off
the form.

And really in the scheme of things it hardly seems terribly important.

My only suggestion is to go to a photographer who knows the precise rules
rather than trying to do it in a booth.

I am not replying to any more posts on this subject.

Nick