Resolving errors on passports - including personal visits
Error resolved by post
Error to be resolved by personal visit to the issuing office
Error to be resolved by another office
Error on an old format or FCO issued passport
Errors on address
Current process
Individual responsibility
Compensation
Security
When a passport is issued with an error, the IPS has an obligation to rectify the mistake as quickly as possible. However, as we have a strict one passport per person policy, we should not normally replace the passport unless the passport has been returned.
For exceptional circumstances see below.
If an error is identified after an application is passed for issue this cannot be rectified on the passport until after the passport is printed and the number is allocated. A replacement passport should not be re-issued until the passport has been returned from DX Secure. The examiner can complete the re-issue once the printed passport has been returned to them for cancellation. This underlines the need to ensure that applications that are passed for issue do not contain errors in personal details. Where a guaranteed fast track is applied for, the passport must be returned before a further passport may be re-issued. If appropriate, the passport may be sent via the Local Print room to ensure any guaranteed service is met.
Staff must not re-bar code an application in order to re-issue a passport.

Where there is time for the situation to be resolved by the post, and the passport holder has brought the passport into the counter, the counter examiner should arrange for the passport to be returned to the original issuing office, marked for the attention of the issuing officer, so that a replacement passport can be issued.
Documentation required to rectify the error should be requested.
Where there is insufficient time for the situation to be resolved by post, the customer should be asked to call at the Regional Office who issued the passport so that a replacement may be issued.
The examiner who originally authorised the issue of the passport should rectify the error if they are in the office. If they are not available, their line manager should arrange for someone else to deal with it.
If the examiner needs to see further documentation, e.g. a birth certificate, the applicant should be asked to bring the document with them so that the details can be confirmed.
Where it is not practicable for the customer to call at the Regional Office that issued the passport, the travel date is imminent and the office is clearly at fault, the use of couriers may be exceptionally agreed on the authorisation of an HEO/SEO as agreed locally, to retrieve the existing passport and deliver the replacement.
If it is preferable for the applicant to call at an office other than the original issuing office, the examiner must contact the counter manager at the alternative office to obtain a name and contact telephone number for the applicant, and to ensure that the office is prepared for the visit.
The examiner should make a premium service appointment for the applicant, either via Teleperformance or with the office chosen, and advise the customer accordingly. If the alternative office is London, the customer will be seen at the 1 st
floor counter without an appointment.
Where there are no appointment slots available, the examiner should arrange with the counter manager at the alternative office for the customer to be seen without an appointment. Care should be taken to ensure that sufficient time is allowed to process any reissue when arranging the personal visit, and customers should be advised that the guaranteed service is 4 hours.
The original application should be clearly noted on the system Passport
Notes, by the original examiner, to explain that the passport has been issued in error and that an appointment has been made for the customer to call at

....... office, with a complete application form, supporting documents, two photographs and the erroneously-issued passport.
A completed application form, supporting documentation to clarify the error, photographs, and the passport with the error on it, will be required because, for security reasons, the system will not allow an office other than the originating office to reissue a passport. If the passport was originally issued on the system, a countersigned application form will not be necessary.
The passport should be replaced free of charge with no request for a premium payment.
Where the passport holder notifies the IPS of an error on an old format or
FCO-issued passport, the above procedures apply. However, a fully completed application form, full supporting documentation and two photographs will be required.
The error should be resolved by post wherever possible as it will usually be necessary to obtain a copy of the original issue file before issue. A same day service cannot be guaranteed, depending on the circumstances.
This instruction sets out to IPS Examiners and their managers the common errors made in the addressing of passports and returned documents.
The importance of ensuring accuracy in customer addressing is paramount.
IPS rightly makes great efforts to ensure that documents are issued only after we have ensured that the applicant's identity and entitlement are established.
Sending a passport to an incorrect address undermines all the work we do prior to passing for issue, damages our reputation, and leaves us open to claims for compensation. It can also have a major impact on customers who may lose their documents, miss travel arrangements, or simply endure anxiety in worrying about their important documents falling into the wrong hands.
It also delays the delivery process, causing additional work both for DX
Secure and for those responsible within the regions for rectifying address errors.
There is also a financial implication to the organisation over and above the cost of re-issuing passports lost in the post, since DX Secure charge IPS for each application that has to be pulled due to an incorrect address. There is an additional charge where IPS has to arrange a timed delivery in order to avoid paying compensation for missed travel.

There are also data protection issues. We are obliged to take good care of customer's personal data and that includes ensuring that we do not inadvertently send it to a third party.
As a measure of the seriousness IPS places on address errors, a performance indicator has been established to measure accuracy.
The system uses a Postal Address File (PAF) to aid in the scanning of application forms. Whilst the form is automatically scanned and a text file created from the form by Optical Character Recognition technology, capture is not 100% accurate, hence the need for Data Verification (DV) Clerks to check the application record.
PAF will not only ensure correctly scanned addresses are formatted in a certain way, it also checks other data sources (e.g. the Electoral Roll) to see if it can match the address with the name provided. The "PAF Match Level" will indicate the following levels of matching; it is important to remember that these matches should be taken as a guide, particularly where the match is partial or unmatched.
PAF MATCH LEVEL DESCRIPTION
Full
The address and surname have been successfully matched in PAF
Full-Updated
Partial
Full Match where one or more of the
PAF'd details have been amended
The address has been successfully matched in PAF
Partial-Updated
No Match
Unmatched
Partial Match where one or more of the PAF'd details have been amended
No satisfactory match could be made
PAF matching did not take place
7.3 No system is infallible, and it is important to remember that errors will slip through. Where a customer puts an incorrect or unclear postcode on the

application form, it is possible for an incomplete of incorrect address to be generated.
PAF occasionally generates an address that is substantially different from that shown in section 2. This might be where the house number and street name are different, the whole postcode is different, or enough of the address is different as to render it unrecognisable from the address in section 2.
In these rare cases where PAF intervenes and produces an address, post code or both that is substantially different (as defined above) to that on the application form and PAF shows a Full Match result for this new address, this cannot be ignored and the address simply mirrored as it may point to an error on the part of the applicant or an issue that needs to be investigated. This address must be confirmed with the applicant by telephone where possible and only where no telephone number has been provided, must the address be confirmed online using the Royal Mail postal address finder. These actions must be case noted and the application re-PIP’d where the address has been changed in the case of a First Time Adult application. Posting a passport to the substantially altered address unchecked could cause delay or loss and where loss occurs, it provides a poor customer experience to find that IPS have not posted to the address the customer themselves provided for us on the application form.
In the extremely rare case of a substantially altered address which cannot be confirmed by the applicant via the telephone or by the examiner online, a contact letter should be sent to ask the applicant to call us. Where no response is received within 10 working days the examiner must mirror the application form and case note to show that they have pursued all possible avenues to resolve the potential error. In this way should there be a mis-post associated with the passport, it is clearly logged that IPS has taken all reasonable measures to ensure the address is correct and has ultimately relied upon the customer providing their address accurately.
Staff must also be aware, however, that Optical Character Recognition (OCR) technology will also sometimes misread text, and this won't always be immediately apparent. For example, a misread house number will generate a partial match and the error may therefore not be identified.
Where it is clear that an applicant has made a mistake in section 2 of their application form (e.g. inputting their town of residence as Shefield instead of
Sheffield) this must be corrected on screen and a case note added to explain the action. However examiners are not expected to be experts in place names and therefore this must be taken into account when investigating errors. For example, if PAF changes the county of Peterborough from Huntingdonshire on the form to Cambridgeshire on screen and the examiner is aware that the correct county is Cambridgeshire, then the examiner would be required to simply mirror the county shown on the application form to ensure consistency in examination and EQC marking.

In the case of London, staff may notice that an applicant will list London as the town they live in as well as the county so that it appears twice in section 2.
This is technically correct and can be accepted, however if PAF removes the second occurrence of the word London, this can also be accepted without the need to check online or with the applicant. This only applies to references to the town and county of London and all other issues of this kind must be dealt with as below.
Where PAF adds extra information to an address that isn’t substantial (as defined above), for example turning “Dulwich Road, London" into "Dulwich
Road, Dulwich, London” or “Saltburn” into “Saltburn by the Sea”, the extra information should be removed in order that the address is mirrored. This is because there is no way for the examiner to ensure that Dulwich Road is really in Dulwich or that Saltburn is actually Saltburn by the Sea without contacting the applicant or checking online, which would slow the application down.
It is vitally important that an examiner does not replicate address format errors, obvious spelling errors and incorrectly formatted postcodes as explained above, as part of the “mirroring” process. Please also see Individual
Responsibility below.
A No Match indicates a potential problem and reasons for the No Match must be investigated. The result of this investigation must be case noted and the address or postcode changed where the applicant has clearly made an error as explained above. For the majority of cases all that is required is a visual check of the address on the form and screen to identify any possible misscans or customer errors as this is the common cause of No Matches which are resolved by Steria mirroring the form. Only where an address differs from the application form should an investigation as above be undertaken. You should bear in mind, however, that the current process does not allow for the match to be updated following DV in Steria. For example, an address that scanned incorrectly will still show a No Match even though the DV clerk has corrected the error. It is therefore possible to see two applications from the same address, one of which will be a Full Match, and the other a No Match.
This is invariably because, as explained, a scanning error occurred on one, which was subsequently corrected.
PAF may also remove part of the address. The data it may remove is
"Postally Not Required Location" and this is removed as Royal Mail do not require this information to deliver mail. However, staff must restore this information as we know from experience that excluding it can cause delay or loss, and where loss occurs, it provides a poor customer experience to find that IPS have not posted to the address the customer provided for us on the application form. It is particularly important under the current DX Secure arrangements as although mail is centrally sorted by postcode, DX couriers need to have all the address information as delivery runs cover wide geographic areas, and postcode information alone is not sufficient to plan courier runs or locate some remote or inner city areas.

Please also see Posting Passports and Documents.
It is therefore essential that examiners check the accuracy of the address details on the system against those provided by the applicant. Examiners also need to be aware that customers can provide the wrong postcode, or to present it in an incorrect format (i.e. PE01 instead of PE1, or PE1 10A instead of PE1 1OA). As the correct postcode is required in order for DX Secure to deliver the passport, in such instances, examiners should not mirror the address on the form, but confirm the correct postcode (with the applicant if required as explained above) and amend the system record. This action must be case noted to record the source and outcome, and it is strongly recommended that you clarify postcodes with customers phonetically (i.e. a alpha, b bravo, etc) to reduce the risk of error.
Alternate addresses feature highly in the addresses identified as incorrect, probably because they are not data verified. These errors are often spotted at the point of the address label being printed for the return of the supporting documents, and whilst invariably Examiner Support Clerks spot this and a
"pull" is requested, there is a cost to this and it relies upon the vigilance of the
Clerk to make good examiner errors. Therefore amendments made to section
2 must also be made against the alternative address tab in the case of children’s applications where the passport is being addressed to the parents.
The exception to this is where the child lives at a different address than that of the parent and the alternative address has been manually inputted by the examiner from the parent’s letter or section 8.
Many postcodes can very easily be ambiguous (i.e. LU instead of LV) and
OCR can similarly make simple mistakes. As stated above, you cannot rely upon the system flags to identify these errors.
Weekly reports are sent to Regional Production Managers identifying cases with address errors. This will continue, allowing managers to identify examiners responsible for failing to identify and correct these address errors.
As public concerns about identity theft continue to grow, it is essential that we are taking all reasonable steps to protect both the customer's documents and their identity by ensuring they are delivered correctly. Please ensure you use the information provided in this note to identify address errors and correct them.
Failure by an examiner to ensure that the customer’s address shown on the system is a true reflection of that on the application form is a breach of the
Fourth and the Seventh principles of the Data Protection Act. These cover keeping information accurate, up to date and secure.
A key aim of the Data Protection Act is to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of personal information to ‘Third Parties’ – that is to persons other than the

person to whom the information relates. This applies to all aspects of their personal details, including their full postal address.
All staff are reminded of the importance of accuracy and security where such important documents are concerned.
Examiners are not only responsible for the accuracy of the personal particulars of the applicant, but also the return address for the passport.
The examiner dealing with the complaint should apologise for the error and explain to the applicant that it is our normal policy to reimburse reasonable out of pocket expenses.
The customer should be advised to request reimbursement in writing and to forward receipts for any out of pocket expenses incurred.
As previously indicated, a passport should not be re-issued until the original has been returned to IPS.
Both the replacement and the original passport records should be case noted or passport noted on the system in full.
The passport status for the original passport should be updated and where the personal details are changed, both records should be case noted orsystem noted to explain the discrepancy.
The original passport with the error on it should be destroyed and placed in confidential waste.