Passport refused - uncancelled passport in maiden name

[Antsmall]

Thanks, Noajthan. (As you can see, I'm checking this thread obsessively too).

So the crucial issue is whether this no-discrepancy rule still exists. Is it possible that it persists in some unpublished manual which the passport people are using, or in general that it is the current rule even if we don't know about it? How can we find out? Let's try.

(I did have some email back-and-forth - I live abroad with an eight-hour time difference, which hinders telephone conversations - with the HMPO and so far my detailed exposition of possible solutions has been answered only with a rather knee-jerk, possibly copy-pasted reply whose import is the same as what you and some others have had: it is against HMPO policy to emit a passport when they are aware that the applicant possesses another passport in a different identity).

Also, do we know how much discretion they have to override or disregard rules una tantum in view of overwhelming circumstances (e.g. foreign citizenship refuses categorically to change name on passport and person clearly, desperately and repeatedly displays incredibly obvious paper trail, thereby demonstrating the total absence of desire to commit fraud and nullifying the raison d'etre of the [putative] rule), or are their hands tied by the rules that they've previously generated for themselves?!

If the rule has survived the revocation of that 9 June 2014 document, like some unwholesome undead corpse which persists in haunting us, then can we find out if it applies only to overseas applications? (In which case I, who live abroad and was going to apply for registration by descent from my place of residence, shall be taking an extended holiday to the rocky island of my forefathers, while you should never have had the ghastly thing unleashed against you in the first place).

Shall we divide up the tasks in this quest/mission/adventure? I have already written to lawyers that came highly recommended, though it could be that they still aren't answering because it's Easter Monday. Essentially I've resolved to seek legal advice before proceeding any further with this (haven't yet made any applications, including citizenship applications). Do you want to make a freedom of information request asking if the no-discrepancy rule persists, and if so, where; whether discretionality to override this rule in cases of manifest paper traceability and absence of fraudulent intent exist nonetheless; how we can deploy a 'letter promising not to use the foreign passport', such as is mentioned at the bottom (save for my probably futile final post) of this thread
http://www.immigrationboards.com/britis ... 79624.html;
how this person https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ication_on succeeded in receiving their passport after having exactly the same problem; and what avenues are available for people in our situation (unable to change name on foreign passport) to obtain a British passport in our married name?

Sorry, that was a long sentence.

I'm also wondering how the no-discrepancy rule (assuming for the sake of argument that it exists) would be used in cases of gender change. Britain allows gender change, including the assumption of the new gender (which probably also involved a new name) in a passport, but many nations do not allow any gender change at all. If, as is highly likely, a person is a dual national of a country which forbids gender change, will they be denied the right to go by their new name and, as the HMPO has been known to say, "identity" just because their less enlightened foreign country forces them to bear an identity which they do not feel is their own? Will Britain, in other words, discriminate against some of its own citizens, just because they hold another nationality - a right to which the powers that be have declared they have no objection - by bowing down to the inferior human-rights protections of another nation and denying those British citizens the full scope of the greater human-rights protections afforded by the UK? You can see how this unleashes a slew of unpleasant and, a few logical steps down the line, increasingly untenable implications. If the relevant authorities *will* disregard any putative no-discrepancy rule for people whose old foreign 'identity' includes not only a different name but also, a fortiori, a different gender (as they are likely to do because denying this right would make them look mightily archaic and cruel), being therefore amenable to disregarding a *far more substantial* discrepancy, then how can they justify nevertheless applying the very same rule in a draconian manner for those whose old foreign 'identity' includes *only a name*? See what I mean?

Sorry about the asterisks. I guess I should have used italics... always wary of using font thingies online in case they turn out looking funny and incomprehensible.

Please let me know how we can divide up the tasks (because it behooves us to be informed, since knowledge, as they say, is power), and meanwhile I'll update the thread if anything transpires, e.g. from these highly recommended lawyers. I'm not going down without a fight and I suspect the same of some or all of you.

Thanks again. Standing by.

[noajthan]

Thanks, Noajthan. (As you can see, I'm checking this thread obsessively too).

So the crucial issue is whether this no-discrepancy rule still exists. Is it possible that it persists in some unpublished manual which the passport people are using, or in general that it is the current rule even if we don't know about it? How can we find out? Let's try.

(I did have some email back-and-forth - I live abroad with an eight-hour time difference, which hinders telephone conversations - with the HMPO and so far my detailed exposition of possible solutions has been answered only with a rather knee-jerk, possibly copy-pasted reply whose import is the same as what you and some others have had: it is against HMPO policy to emit a passport when they are aware that the applicant possesses another passport in a different identity).

Also, do we know how much discretion they have to override or disregard rules una tantum in view of overwhelming circumstances (e.g. foreign citizenship refuses categorically to change name on passport and person clearly, desperately and repeatedly displays incredibly obvious paper trail, thereby demonstrating the total absence of desire to commit fraud and nullifying the raison d'etre of the [putative] rule), or are their hands tied by the rules that they've previously generated for themselves?!

If the rule has survived the revocation of that 9 June 2014 document, like some unwholesome undead corpse which persists in haunting us, then can we find out if it applies only to overseas applications? (In which case I, who live abroad and was going to apply for registration by descent from my place of residence, shall be taking an extended holiday to the rocky island of my forefathers, while you should never have had the ghastly thing unleashed against you in the first place).

Shall we divide up the tasks in this quest/mission/adventure? I have already written to lawyers that came highly recommended, though it could be that they still aren't answering because it's Easter Monday. Essentially I've resolved to seek legal advice before proceeding any further with this (haven't yet made any applications, including citizenship applications). Do you want to make a freedom of information request asking if the no-discrepancy rule persists, and if so, where; whether discretionality to override this rule in cases of manifest paper traceability and absence of fraudulent intent exist nonetheless; how we can deploy a 'letter promising not to use the foreign passport', such as is mentioned at the bottom (save for my probably futile final post) of this thread
http://www.immigrationboards.com/britis ... 79624.html;
how this person https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ication_on succeeded in receiving their passport after having exactly the same problem; and what avenues are available for people in our situation (unable to change name on foreign passport) to obtain a British passport in our married name?

Sorry, that was a long sentence.

I'm also wondering how the no-discrepancy rule (assuming for the sake of argument that it exists) would be used in cases of gender change. Britain allows gender change, including the assumption of the new gender (which probably also involved a new name) in a passport, but many nations do not allow any gender change at all. If, as is highly likely, a person is a dual national of a country which forbids gender change, will they be denied the right to go by their new name and, as the HMPO has been known to say, "identity" just because their less enlightened foreign country forces them to bear an identity which they do not feel is their own? Will Britain, in other words, discriminate against some of its own citizens, just because they hold another nationality - a right to which the powers that be have declared they have no objection - by bowing down to the inferior human-rights protections of another nation and denying those British citizens the full scope of the greater human-rights protections afforded by the UK? You can see how this unleashes a slew of unpleasant and, a few logical steps down the line, increasingly untenable implications. If the relevant authorities *will* disregard any putative no-discrepancy rule for people whose old foreign 'identity' includes not only a different name but also, a fortiori, a different gender (as they are likely to do because denying this right would make them look mightily archaic and cruel), being therefore amenable to disregarding a *far more substantial* discrepancy, then how can they justify nevertheless applying the very same rule in a draconian manner for those whose old foreign 'identity' includes *only a name*? See what I mean?

Sorry about the asterisks. I guess I should have used italics... always wary of using font thingies online in case they turn out looking funny and incomprehensible.

Please let me know how we can divide up the tasks (because it behooves us to be informed, since knowledge, as they say, is power), and meanwhile I'll update the thread if anything transpires, e.g. from these highly recommended lawyers. I'm not going down without a fight and I suspect the same of some or all of you.

Thanks again. Standing by.

I had expected to hear from HM PO by now;
as I haven't received anything in writing yet I intend to call them up and ask directly about the status of our application - then go from there.

It may well come to a FOI request or even involving my MP (etc); will try to get a steer towards solving this discrepancy from the PO first.

[Antsmall]

I for one will be anxiously waiting for what you discover.

Unfortunately I'm not in a position to call them because I live on the other side of the world and I'm chained to a 9-5 job (8-6 if you count the commute), so making international phone-calls during British office hours is not really feasible.

However, I will be having a phone consultation with a recommended lawyer in three weeks or so (it was the earliest appointment I could find) and I'll update this thread with any information I find.

Anxiously looking forward to whatever information you manage to unearth!

[noajthan]

Called passport help line (0300 222 0000) again.

Although helpful & patient the operator said he could not see specific details of the case
- he was able to confirm "it's been received & sent for processing";
- he also noted there was a 'query' (but said no details were visible to him on his system).

He has arranged a 'callback' from Durham office who will contact me;
- advised to expect this call back within 2 working days.

I have also filed a tracking request online at:
https://www.gov.uk/track-passport-application

[Antsmall]

I asked the passport people (by email) on which document is this alleged rule about name discrepancy, and they sent me a misspelt reply (two spelling errors in a two-sentence message: such are the arbiters of our fate) saying that they "can't" (they LOVE to claim that they "can't" do things) give me any details of policies as they are 'confidential documents'. When I asked about the letter about which we've been talking, whereby some people as recently as February 2015 have been allowed to get their passports anyway, they merely copy-pasted their previous reply (with spelling errors intact) about how they also "can't" issue a passport in a different name etc etc. They aren't answering my questions but merely copy-pasting the same negative and mindless response over and over again.

Don't you think it's dictatorial to deny people knowledge of the rules by which they are being judged? Does this really seem to be a feature of a democratic and free nation? I am really interested to know what other people think about this.

Anyway, my lawyer's phone consultation is in a little under two weeks (I think I said three last time, probably because it subjectively feels like an eternity) and I'll update the thread if I discover anything relevant. I really hope something can be done, though the absolutely robotic and rudimentary responses of the passport people don't bode well. I fear that no matter what rational and articulate lawyers we have and what unassailable arguments we produce, it's to no avail if the final judgement is from someone who does not (or, to use their favourite word, "can't") examine arguments and is impervious to reason - especially if their judgement is final and can't be overridden by that of a less rudimentary individual.

Looking forward to any information you might glean from your conversation with them during the promised 'callback'. Thanks again.

[noajthan]

Thanks for your news Antsmall, it chimes with this experience...

Callback
Was called by HM PO today.
The official was helpful, fairly open & patient to questioning.
Our case has been referred 'somewhere' (to some unit) for an 'opinion'; it was referred in mid-March & chased up (internally) in late March.
He apologised for the delay in this case & recommended I call back every 7-10 days to chase it.
(he said he's now also marked it for an increased priority of attention).

Status
He stated the situation is not an outright refusal to issue a British passport.

New policy
He stated there is a policy that prevents issuing a British passport in a new identity when any valid passport exists in another identity.
He did not identify the particular law or regulation

Policy documents
He said they have regularly updated, internal policy documents that are not made public
He was unable to confirm if this internal policy document was the now withdrawn June 2014 document; (Overseas Policy and Procedure Changes 9th June 2014, ie the one discussed earlier in this thread).
He reminded me there are public policy documents on the HM PO website, but commented that they made be out of date ( ).

Q&A
I re-explained the situation from my viewpoint (& confirmed I had examined every document available on the HM PO website) & then followed up with some questions.

The official replied as follows:
he confirmed he recognised people in UK can have dual nationality;
he confirmed he recognised women in UK can & do have maiden names & can use them if they wish to;
he recognised we weren't fraudsters ( ) or committing any offence ( ) by my wife currently using her 2 names on various bank accounts, medical records, official documents & etc;
he acknowledged that, as per HM PO policy documents, an observation can be added to a British passport to note the use of a maiden name by a woman;
- he said doing this wouldn't help in our case (although it would make the 2nd name obvious);

He again summarised the position by stating the HM PO won't be issuing a British passport in a second identity.

What can I do
I asked if I could help by contacting the PH embassy;
my idea is to establish the actual status of my wife's uncancelled Filipino passport (which we believe is now null & void, as she is now a British citizen, & therefore is not in fact a valid identity/travel document anymore).
The official said it would not help as they have to wait on the reply to their internal enquiries.

Unfortunately I forgot to restate that, in my opinion (& in our case), the Filipino passport was now null & void and so could not be considered as a valid second identity.

Next steps
As I took the call at work, I also forgot to ask why the guidance (& NCS Post Office service) aren't more explicit & don't help on this topic of discrepancy of names/passports.
If such guidance was clearer at least some people could do something before they apply

Will pick up on these points next time I call.

Next time, I also want to dig into the apparent incompatibility of this secret new identity policy compared to the UK naturalisation process which did accept (& approve) an application in a married name (supported by marriage certificate & identity documents in a maiden name)

Wait & see
Finally, the official said we will receive further instructions or advice once the internal referrals have been completed;
he said it should be possible to continue with the current application rather than re-applying;
- at least it sounds like the time & cost of a second application may not be necessary, but for me the delay & inconvenience & inability to travel is more significant.

(again he recommended I call back every 7-10 days to chase the case)

[Antsmall]

Thanks for taking the time to describe your experience. I'm so sorry that you are having to go through this.

It seems that they have become utterly obsessed with this 'second identity passport' thing even though this is absolutely useless, because they recognise second identities in each and every other ambit of life, which is why they allow 'also known as' notes - even for stage names, religious names and so on, which are far less 'robust' than married names as they are not supported by official documents! They are utterly permissive of name changes, allowing someone to change their name to F'tang F'tang Ole' Biscuitbarrel as a parliamentary candidate famously did, yet on this one tiny point they exhibit complete intransigence. It serves no concrete purpose. And by the way I know many dual nationals who have been renewing their British passports for decades in their married name while still keeping their other nationality's passport in their maiden name as per the laws of that country. Will there suddenly be a wave of passport rejections when all these people dutifully comply with the new intrusive regulations of showing all foreign passports upon applying to renew? Will only the people who are less honest and fail to show these passports be rewarded with a passport in the name of their choice, and the others be stuck in limbo? It seems that the only concrete function of this asinine regulation is to deny rights to the scrupulously honest. They're making sure to screen out the most honest, least fraudulent people.

I fear that I'll be forced to renounce my other nationality, of the country which, despite its idiotic rules regarding married names, accepted me from birth, unlike Britain which rejected me as an inferior being through no fault of my own even though my father is British-born and the family's genealogy is tied to the British Isles since time immemorial. It breaks my heart to have to choose between the country where I was born and grew up, of whose language I am a native speaker just as I am of English (and a far more proficient one than the passport people, mind you), and my husband and right to self-determination. It really breaks my heart.

Anyway, let's keep trying to find out what is going on. I can only hold out hope that the lawyers will come up with something.

[noajthan]

Useful background info from a previous FOI request, see:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ing-552095

- the same as a PDF file:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... attley.pdf

The above includes a link to this UK policy on foreign documents:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... uments.pdf

In none of the above can I see anything to explicitly justify refusing a passport due to either a married/maiden name discrepancy or due to the supposed creation of a second identity.

[blueberry1986]

Wow this a very interesting and informative thread which I am glad I have clicked on.
I am getting married in August and my new husband and I will go on our honeymoon in December (to Philippines!)
I will have a passport from Canada in my maiden name but need the British passport to be issued in my married name as my partner has booked our airline tickets in the married name!
My Canadian passport expires in March 2016 and I was planning to renew it in January 2016 but looks like the british gvt is unlikely to issue me a british passport in my married name without the canadian one first being changed. Canadian authorities request a gvt issued ID in new name to change passport name, which I was planning to use the british passport for this!!
Nightmare

[Antsmall]

Interesting that this FOI request was granted while the passport office keeps telling me that I cannot see the policy because it is 'confidential'. Is that one of those 'exempt' materials that the FOI rules mention?

It is becoming increasingly clear that this new name rule, while serving no purpose in preventing alleged 'fraud' by people whose change to their married names is clearly documented and out in the open (and could even be stated explicitly on their British passports through a 'holder is also known as' note), is creating, and will continue to create, a nightmarish cascade of interlocking problems. For instance, what happens when all those dual nationals with countries which forbid married names, who have been peacefully renewing their British passports in their married names for decades, comply with the new 'show me the foreign passport' rule the next time they have to renew their British passports? Will there be a spate of refusals on this basis, meaning that suddenly a bunch of people with no criminal record are having their rights curtailed even though they peacefully exercised those rights before?

This rule is poorly thought out and they should have the maturity and coherence to revoke it. Not that I have a say in the matter, of course. And I fear that this business of 'royal prerogative' may place these rules outside the law.

By the way, here's a thought: restricting someone's rights (in this case, the right of all British citizens to control their own names) on the basis that they *might* commit fraud is more or less equivalent to punishing them before they have committed a crime; in other words, it reeks of the presumption of guilt, when the presumption of innocence is a basic principle of civilised legal systems. Punishing people for acts not yet committed (and probably never to be committed) is a totalitarian thing to do. Could we somehow get them to rescind the rule on this basis (presumption of guilt: you can't have self-determination because you *might* use it for fraud even though you haven't and may never do so) by citing its incompatibility with the presumption of innocence and the totalitarianism of taking away the rights of people who have not engaged in any wrongdoing? In other words, taking away long-standing rights willy nilly? Could there additionally be some angle whereby discriminating against people just because they hold another nationality (because those who are only British have their self-naming rights intact) goes against some principle of non-interference in dual nationality?

All we need is a permission of discretion - e.g. a note in this mysterious 'policy' (which we aren't allowed to see) which says 'where a person wants to add a married name and is a dual national of a country which forbids married names, if they have no criminal record and the connexion between maiden and married names is clearly documented, the passport will be granted in the name requested, but a note stating the maiden name will be placed in the passport' - or something of that nature. Then they can still weed out what they think are fraudulent name change requests (and by the way, it's not as if non-dual nationals can't ever have fraudulent intent in changing their names!!) without hindering ever-greater numbers of innocent people wishing to exercise their right of identity choice despite also being nationals of a country which denies them that choice. If not, Britain is bowing down to the inferior rights granted by those countries - a practice which opens up all sorts of unwelcome implications.

[noajthan]

Wow this a very interesting and informative thread which I am glad I have clicked on.
I am getting married in August and my new husband and I will go on our honeymoon in December (to Philippines!)
I will have a passport from Canada in my maiden name but need the British passport to be issued in my married name as my partner has booked our airline tickets in the married name!
My Canadian passport expires in March 2016 and I was planning to renew it in January 2016 but looks like the british gvt is unlikely to issue me a british passport in my married name without the canadian one first being changed. Canadian authorities request a gvt issued ID in new name to change passport name, which I was planning to use the british passport for this!!
Nightmare

blueberry1986, glad this thread at least helped you to be forewarned.

I don't know much about it but there is a provision for obtaining a post-dated British passport in a married name; it is specifically for newly-weds.
I believe you have to be within 3 months of your marriage/name change to apply for that.
As it is a recognised scenario you may be ok - but do check & double-check

If not, then to be on the safe side you could perhaps cancel your Canadian passport early;
(as per current UK guidance, cancelled passports do not have to be declared or submitted to the HM PO when applying for a British passport).
You could always reacquire a Canadian passport at a later date - when the dust has settled.

Alternately, due to your travel plans, you may need to think about changing the name on your ticket & (maybe) rely on your current passport for now.
Even if there's a fee involved it can't be worse than dealing with inflexible government agencies and the timelines for both naturalisation (?) & passport processing

However, that may not work if you're already naturalised & living in the UK because you may not get back into UK on a Canadian passport (it won't show your right of abode in UK) ( ).
In which case, if you have used your maiden name to naturalise then a British passport in maiden name should be no problem. (My daughter's first British passport was recently granted in approx 3 weeks, as no name change was involved).

Longer term name changes & overall passport strategy could then be handled sometime after your wedding & honeymoon.
PS May I recommend you check out the lovely islands of Cebu, Bohol and Palawan (in PH) for your honeymoon.

[noajthan]

Interesting that this FOI request was granted while the passport office keeps telling me that I cannot see the policy because it is 'confidential'. Is that one of those 'exempt' materials that the FOI rules mention?

It is becoming increasingly clear that this new name rule, while serving no purpose in preventing alleged 'fraud' by people whose change to their married names is clearly documented and out in the open (and could even be stated explicitly on their British passports through a 'holder is also known as' note), is creating, and will continue to create, a nightmarish cascade of interlocking problems. For instance, what happens when all those dual nationals with countries which forbid married names, who have been peacefully renewing their British passports in their married names for decades, comply with the new 'show me the foreign passport' rule the next time they have to renew their British passports? Will there be a spate of refusals on this basis, meaning that suddenly a bunch of people with no criminal record are having their rights curtailed even though they peacefully exercised those rights before?

This rule is poorly thought out and they should have the maturity and coherence to revoke it. Not that I have a say in the matter, of course. And I fear that this business of 'royal prerogative' may place these rules outside the law.

By the way, here's a thought: restricting someone's rights (in this case, the right of all British citizens to control their own names) on the basis that they *might* commit fraud is more or less equivalent to punishing them before they have committed a crime; in other words, it reeks of the presumption of guilt, when the presumption of innocence is a basic principle of civilised legal systems. Punishing people for acts not yet committed (and probably never to be committed) is a totalitarian thing to do. Could we somehow get them to rescind the rule on this basis (presumption of guilt: you can't have self-determination because you *might* use it for fraud even though you haven't and may never do so) by citing its incompatibility with the presumption of innocence and the totalitarianism of taking away the rights of people who have not engaged in any wrongdoing? In other words, taking away long-standing rights willy nilly? Could there additionally be some angle whereby discriminating against people just because they hold another nationality (because those who are only British have their self-naming rights intact) goes against some principle of non-interference in dual nationality?

All we need is a permission of discretion - e.g. a note in this mysterious 'policy' (which we aren't allowed to see) which says 'where a person wants to add a married name and is a dual national of a country which forbids married names, if they have no criminal record and the connexion between maiden and married names is clearly documented, the passport will be granted in the name requested, but a note stating the maiden name will be placed in the passport' - or something of that nature. Then they can still weed out what they think are fraudulent name change requests (and by the way, it's not as if non-dual nationals can't ever have fraudulent intent in changing their names!!) without hindering ever-greater numbers of innocent people wishing to exercise their right of identity choice despite also being nationals of a country which denies them that choice. If not, Britain is bowing down to the inferior rights granted by those countries - a practice which opens up all sorts of unwelcome implications.

Antsmall, I agree - this is exactly the type of common-sense policy that is required:

All we need is a permission of discretion - e.g. a note in this mysterious 'policy' (which we aren't allowed to see) which says 'where a person wants to add a married name and is a dual national of a country which forbids married names, if they have no criminal record and the connexion between maiden and married names is clearly documented, the passport will be granted in the name requested, but a note stating the maiden name will be placed in the passport' - or something of that nature.

And we've already heard of some degree of discretion that was recently being applied by the HM PO letters that 1 or 2 others reported they had received;
whereby they had to declare their intent to give up their 'offending' dual identity document asap.

btw - still waiting for our guidance or instructions to come in writing from HM PO.

[Antsmall]

Blueberry1986,

Canadian authorities request a gvt issued ID in new name to change passport name, which I was planning to use the british passport for this!!

If you are not yet a British citizen then it should be ok: surely the Canadians can let non-dual nationals (how to say - uninationals?) change their names without needing an ID from a foreign country?! If you're not yet a British citizen then I'd suggest dealing with the name change for Canada first and then registering or naturalising in your married name. They claim that they try to consider registration applications "quickly, usually within six months" (or words to that effect: it's a bit contradictory, like saying "it's mild, like a Scotch Bonnet pepper") so you might have to delay that until after your honeymoon, since it's hard to predict when one will get one's passport back after applying for citizenship. Or is it the case that you are already a citizen of both countries, and because you're a dual national, the Canadians won't grant you your married name unless you can prove that it already exists in your foreign citizenship? In which case, Canada and Britain are basically playing the same fun fun catch-22 game. Or they pre-wedding passport thing mentioned by noajthan may be ok unless they cross-fertilise it with the 'no name discrepancy with foreign passport' rule.

I wonder: is it possible to have one's foreign passport cancelled without at the same time having it renewed?

Noajthan,

When I mentioned the existence of the famous 'letters' described in other threads here (promising never to use the 'offending documents' or possibly abjure the foreign citizenship - it wasn't made clear), the HMPO people just robotically copy-pasted the same misspelt message that they'd already sent, namely that they 'can't' issue a passport if there is another passport with a different 'identity'. They didn't refer to this new piece of information (the letters, implying discretion) at all. They also repeated that they 'can't' show me the policy allegedly containing this no-discrepancy rule, but 'helpfully' sent me the link to the passport guidance pages which a) I'd already perused thoroughly about 812 times and b) don't mention the no-discrepancy rule. I've told them that the no-discrepancy rule doesn't appear in any of those materials, but I don't anticipate any progress on that front, because according to themselves, they can restrict our rights on the strength of unsubstantiated claims (in this case, their argument is essentially "there's proof, but I won't show you and there's nothing you can do about it because nanny nanny boo boo I'm bigger than you").

[blueberry1986]

Blueberry1986,

Canadian authorities request a gvt issued ID in new name to change passport name, which I was planning to use the british passport for this!!

If you are not yet a British citizen then it should be ok: surely the Canadians can let non-dual nationals (how to say - uninationals?) change their names without needing an ID from a foreign country?! If you're not yet a British citizen then I'd suggest dealing with the name change for Canada first and then registering or naturalising in your married name. They claim that they try to consider registration applications "quickly, usually within six months" (or words to that effect: it's a bit contradictory, like saying "it's mild, like a Scotch Bonnet pepper") so you might have to delay that until after your honeymoon, since it's hard to predict when one will get one's passport back after applying for citizenship. Or is it the case that you are already a citizen of both countries, and because you're a dual national, the Canadians won't grant you your married name unless you can prove that it already exists in your foreign citizenship? In which case, Canada and Britain are basically playing the same fun fun catch-22 game. Or they pre-wedding passport thing mentioned by noajthan may be ok unless they cross-fertilise it with the 'no name discrepancy with foreign passport' rule.

I wonder: is it possible to have one's foreign passport cancelled without at the same time having it renewed?

Noajthan,

When I mentioned the existence of the famous 'letters' described in other threads here (promising never to use the 'offending documents' or possibly abjure the foreign citizenship - it wasn't made clear), the HMPO people just robotically copy-pasted the same misspelt message that they'd already sent, namely that they 'can't' issue a passport if there is another passport with a different 'identity'. They didn't refer to this new piece of information (the letters, implying discretion) at all. They also repeated that they 'can't' show me the policy allegedly containing this no-discrepancy rule, but 'helpfully' sent me the link to the passport guidance pages which a) I'd already perused thoroughly about 812 times and b) don't mention the no-discrepancy rule. I've told them that the no-discrepancy rule doesn't appear in any of those materials, but I don't anticipate any progress on that front, because according to themselves, they can restrict our rights on the strength of unsubstantiated claims (in this case, their argument is essentially "there's proof, but I won't show you and there's nothing you can do about it because nanny nanny boo boo I'm bigger than you").

I am already a dual citizen,
I think I may be able to use my UK driving licence as an ID for the canadian authorities....they do not request all passports from other countries. Panic over!
goodluck to all.

[noajthan]

Update to my wife's case.

I phoned the Philippine embassy (London) to ask about my wife's current citizenship & status of her Filipino passport.
The embassy's passport department have confirmed verbally that:
as of the date of her UK naturalisation she is no longer a Filipino citizen
&
her Filipino passport is no longer valid & cannot be used;
(even though it's not 'cancelled' and it's still unexpired)

So it seems clear that if/when she is granted a British passport it is not actually creating a "new (second) identity" for her as she can no longer consider her Filipino passport to be a valid (first) identity document.

Just need to get this in writing & see if it can help move the case along.

If the HM PO will only agree then the obstacle blocking them issuing her with a British passport is removed

[MariaD]

nathan, does your wife included her marriage certificate with the application?

I have a similar problem. The different is that I can't cancel my home passport because it's against the Law of my country, and now I have a dual nationality.
To change name in my home passport is not possible as I need to go back to my country and stay their weeks or maybe months, to change first my interior passport and then my foreign passport. Passport office is not aware of it or they don't care.
I called to Home Office today and they don't see issue in this point. Furthermore, they are not aware of cases as mine and wondering why is Passport Office won't issue me passport. Unfortunately they can't help me to solve the problem.
Fourth time I spoke to passport office today and lady asked to send them my merriage certificate. She thinks it will solve my problem. I am still worring that it's not enough as this is not what says in the letter.
Anyway we will see what will happent next.

[noajthan]

nathan, does your wife included her marriage certificate with the application?

I have a similar problem. The different is that I can't cancel my home passport because it's against the Law of my country, and now I have a dual nationality.
To change name in my home passport is not possible as I need to go back to my country and stay their weeks or maybe months, to change first my interior passport and then my foreign passport. Passport office is not aware of it or they don't care.
I called to Home Office today and they don't see issue in this point. Furthermore, they are not aware of cases as mine and wondering why is Passport Office won't issue me passport. Unfortunately they can't help me to solve the problem.
Fourth time I spoke to passport office today and lady asked to send them my merriage certificate. She thinks it will solve my problem. I am still worring that it's not enough as this is not what says in the letter.
Anyway we will see what will happent next.

MariaD, sorry to hear you are in a similar situation.

Yes we supplied all the necessary documents for the British passport application including our UK marriage certificate (& foreign passport in maiden name).

In fact we used more or less the same documents for my wife's British naturalisation; the Home Office had no problem & naturalisation (in married name) was approved very quickly.
My daughter was recently registered as a UK citizen & received her British passport just last month with no difficulty at all; (no name change was involved for her).

It is the HM PO that appears out of step with the Home Office (UKBF) and with other countries' policies for women's names in passports &/or for dual nationals who happen to be married women.
Unfortunately, there is no published guidance on this matter in the UK passport application paperwork (& the Post Office NCS seems unaware too).

It is regrettable there is no guidance in the UK naturalisation guidance either, to give advance warning of possible problems with a future British passport application

It is unfortunate if you cannot cancel your other passport.
It is the existence of the other 'identity' in an uncancelled passport (in another name) that HM PO seems to have a problem with.
But I'm not sure what regulation or policy this is based on as HM PO does not appear to make it public.

Are there no circumstances at all that would enable your other passport to be cancelled?
If not, can you get a supporting letter from your embassy to explain your original country's passport policy?
That may help as evidence to HM PO.

You could also try asking HM PO to add an official 'observation' about your maiden name into the British passport.
By declaring it in this way, openly in a passport, noone could say it's a secret, second identity

Are you sure you cannot change your original passport to your married name via an embassy located in the UK ? (to avoid returning to your country).

Alternately, I wonder if it's possible to (re)apply for a British passport in a maiden name (to match with original, foreign passport in maiden name).
(The British passport could then include an observation about "also known as" married name to tie it in with the naturalised name).

There is no general law about having to use a single name in the UK (many people in the UK do use both their maiden & married names);
so it shouldn't affect the (married) name a person may have been naturalised with - but further advice should be obtained on such a step.

You could always try your local Citizen's Advice Bureau or even your local MP to take up your case.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/l ... ity_advice


You mentioned a letter (from HM PO?), so did you receive any clear instructions or explanation about the rules from the HMPO?
Please share any such details if you can.
(We are still waiting for any letter).

In the meantime, good luck.

[noajthan]

Written statement to Parliament
The issuing, withdrawal or refusal of passports

From:
Home Office and The Rt Hon Theresa May

Delivered on:
25 April 2013

The most recent information I can find:
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... -passports

It's seems mostly to be about safety, security & public protection.

There is no entitlement to a passport and no statutory right to have access to a passport. The decision to issue, withdraw, or refuse a British passport is at the discretion of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (the Home Secretary) under the Royal Prerogative.

Nothing here about the proportionate risks posed by women using married/maiden names.

A decision to refuse or withdraw a passport must be necessary and proportionate. The decision to withdraw or refuse a passport and the reason for that decision will be conveyed to the applicant or passport holder. The disclosure of information used to determine such a decision will be subject to the individual circumstances of the case.

[noajthan]

This from UK parliament website.
Deprivation of British citizenship and withdrawal of passport facilities - Commons Library Standard Note

Published 30 January 2015

Standard notes SN06820:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... facilities

[noajthan]

Watching this FOI request with interest ...

Dual nationals' right to choose how to be named on their passports:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... o_choose_h

[noajthan]

Other recent FOI requests of interest ...

Refusal of passports:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ing-641067

Checks carried out against UK passport application:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... ing-641853

[Antsmall]

The "Dual nationals' right" etc was my FOI request. I've been exploring all possible avenues to investigate this matter.

So far, however, it has been entirely useless. I contacted the Home Office about the same thing and all they did was copy-paste some FAQ thing about how easy it is to make a name change. It was from the guidance for naturalisation - even though I clearly stated that I was registering for citizenship by descent, which means that they didn't even read my message! I have written to them again, asking them please to read my message this time (not in a snarky way - don't worry, I'm not so dense as to antagonise them) because it cannot merely be solved by looking at publicly available documents *as I had already stated in my previous message* (honestly, these people seem to have exceedingly low expectations of us to assume that we write these letters without bothering to check available materials first... I have a sodding PhD from a top British university and it really riles me that they assume that I have zero research skills). The thing is, every correspondence phase with them takes '20 working days', which means we'll be waiting a long time before my latest message is answered (if ever). I have let them know that their very straightforward and sensible name policy (which it is) is being flouted by the HMPO's incompatible name discrepancy rule, which claims to prevent fraud but in fact is rigidly and needlessly applied even when fraud is absolutely impossible due to disclosure of all names, with supporting documents, even on the passport itself (through a 'holder is also known as' note on the passport which would make the other identity crystal clear every time the passport was examined).

The HMPO *explicitly refuses* to show where this alleged name discrepancy policy is. It is, of course, on none of their publicly available materials; when I asked them where it was, they refused point blank to tell me, claiming that it is 'confidential'. So their entire argument rests on a putative piece of evidence which they won't show us. Imagine this in court: "I know he done it, m'ludd, because I have inconfutable evidence, m'ludd, only nobody is allowed to see it". "Very well, the electric chair it is then".

In my correspondence with the HMPO I keep asking them about various means of getting around the difficulty: can we send a letter like the one which someone says you asked them to provide before proceeding to send the passport; can we have a 'holder is also known as [maiden name]' note on the passport so there is no possibility of fraud because *every single official* who views the passport will be immediately aware of the maiden name, hence there will be no concealment; and so on. But all they do is copy-paste their previous misspelt message about how it's "against HMPO policy" to issue a passport when the holder has a foreign passport in another identity. They don't engage with any of my pertinent questions, but merely assume that someone it hasn't got through to me that "it is against HMPO policy etc etc". When I say "yes, I understand that, but I have evidence of exceptions, so could you please elucidate" they just go back to the same step of "it is against HMPO policy".

The ultimate problem is that in this particular system, a passport is not a right, and comes under the 'Royal Prerogatve', which is why technically they can refuse us on a whim and still be right, more or less. They're unaccountable.

I'll be speaking to a lawyer in two days (at least, so it has been arranged).

[LiaDoe]

Sorry I can not access my private messages, states "You are not authorised to read private messages."

I have sent a request to the HMPO to provide me a formal refusal letter with the reason for decision .
At present I await their reply and will be in touch once I receive a response.

[Antsmall]

How bizarre that you're not allowed to see your private messages. Oh well. Yet another mystery of supposedly superior modern technology.

Anyway, thanks for updating us: the more of us are in touch and join together in this effort, the greater the chances are that They will change Their silly ways. If one person whines at them, probably nothing will happen, but if several people join together and initiate some sort of request or procedure in a concerted manner, they may begin to suspect that something has to be fixed.

[Siraj ud-Daulah]

You need 10 posts to be able to view private message, just make it to number 10