biometric card

[MaprangHolmes]

ILR granted on Saturday and my wife's biometric card arrived Wednesday by courier a good service all round.

[7by7]

Nice one.

Next, and final, step; British citizenship.

[maxtwo]

My wife ilr was granted on 14 august tuck 3 weeks for them to print biometric.But that's better than the 13 years to get the ilr.

[Richard W]

UK biometric residence permits are a type of photo ID card. They are what remains of Labour's plan for every adult in the country to have an ID card. The idea is that every adult who does not have an EEA nationality but resides in the UK and may reside in the UK for more than 6 months should have one. They replace long-term leave to remain or enter endorsements issued in the UK.

In principal, they could be a good idea, but the major flaw is that they need to be renewed. Renewing them when they expire simply through old age is mandatory, but they may not be renewed (or, indeed, replaced) if you are abroad. (Possibly you don't become liable to the fine until you return to the UK - or can someone show me where the exemption is?) There seems to be no mechanism to bring renewal forwards - I don't know whether new cards start their 5/10 years at the date of issue, like driving licences, or when the previous one expires. Other replacements expire at the same date as the card they are replacing. There is a special visa that one gets instead of replacing (including renewing) one abroad - one then has to request a new BRP within a month of return to the UK.

There is no appeal against refusal of a replacement card; the HO acknowledge that in rare cases someone in the UK with leave to remain may wind up with no evidence of that right in their possession.

People with an ILR or ILE endorsement in an old passport are being encouraged to trade them in for a BRP (or does the endorsement remain valid?) by strongly discouraging employers from employing such people. It might be an offence to show an old ILR endorsement but not one's latest BRP if any on entry to the UK - I haven't studied the regulations in enough detail. I have seen no indication that it is possible to enter the UK using a BRP that expired the day before.

As no BRPs have yet expired through old age, it is possible that the renewal process may be made less inconvenient. Alternatively, this might be a deliberate encouragement for people to move on to naturalisation. That trivialises the oath of allegiance, but some seem happy with the idea of citizenship as just another immigration status. This is harsh on those who are not ready to abandon their previous allegiance - there are quite a few countries which regard voluntary naturalisation as renunciation of the previous citizenship.

[bobrussell]

Missed this last post. I am an employer and there is no mechanism in place to 'strongly discourage' employers from employing people with ILR vignettes.

BRP's do not have to be replaced for 10 years by which time the photo is likely to be out of date. Similar situation with drivers licences and passports. Really not much difference as far as I can see. It may be that they may be seen as a bit of revenue gathering but that is as sinister as it gets. At the moment failure to have a valid drivers licence or BRP is £1000.

The choice of going for naturalisation is a purely personal one and there is nothing to suggest renewing a BRP will be any more challenging than renewing a drivers licence.

My wife is extremely proud to be Thai but is also immensely proud of her British passport. Those that hold allegiance to their original nation so strongly just keep ILR. No political party (including UKIP) have even hinted of a change of status for people with ILR.

[7by7]

<snip>

....there are quite a few countries which regard voluntary naturalisation as renunciation of the previous citizenship.

As neither Thailand nor the UK are one of these countries, that is irrelevant to members of this forum.

As often said elsewhere; both Thailand and the UK allow dual citizenship and naturalising as British will not effect a Thai's rights as a Thai citizen in any way.

Except, if they use their British passport to enter Thailand instead of their Thai one they will be regarded as British for immigration purposes; but that's it, so they should always use their Thai passport to enter and leave Thailand.

Like Mrs bobrussell, my wife is proud to be both British and Thai and loves the Queen almost as much as she loves the King.

Although, naturally, in the extremely unlikely event she was forced to choose, she'd choose Thailand.

[Richard W]

Missed this last post. I am an employer and there is no mechanism in place to 'strongly discourage' employers from employing people with ILR vignettes.

I posted the main refutation this morning in the thread Indefinite Leave to Remain. FWIW, my reading of the current regulations is shared on page 8 (in the section headed Expired Passports) of some material originating from the law firm Squire Sanders. I read its 'must' as referring to steps to acquire a statutory excuse, rather than as a general legal obligation.

BRP's do not have to be replaced for 10 years by which time the photo is likely to be out of date. Similar situation with drivers licences and passports. Really not much difference as far as I can see. It may be that they may be seen as a bit of revenue gathering but that is as sinister as it gets. At the moment failure to have a valid drivers licence or BRP is £1000.

If you live in the UK, passports don't have to be renewed.

I see I was wrong about driving licences - there's quite a revenue stream available there. British expats - watch out!

The choice of going for naturalisation is a purely personal one and there is nothing to suggest renewing a BRP will be any more challenging than renewing a drivers licence.

Renewing a photocard driving licence is now amazingly simple. You just walk into a suitably equipped post office, pay, hand over your old licence, have your photo taken, sign your name. Renewing a BRP is far more challenging than this.

[steady]

I have read Richard W's last post and I know that it is in English but I just don't understand it!

It says " LTR to citizenship would have been faster than LTR to ILR. The different time scales were to encourage people to naturalise, or alternatively to punish them for choosing not to." Another way of writing this would be to say "encourage them to naturalise" and not mention "punish" if they didn't. I think we all agree that this would be the better option. Richard W , are you just writing it with a negative viewpoint because you have a hidden agenda?

Presently the legal position is that Thai men and women can naturalise as British without any detriment. This is a Thai / Foreign forum so why would you discuss other countries instead of Thailand? Many things you say are correct - but always with a negative bias. However as most of us are aware, right now the general public are against immigration. Politicians encourage them to believe the Poles, or other Europeans - with the right to remain in the UK are exactly the same as Somalis, Syrians or any other deprived people, without an automatic right to remain. So when a small minority of British people try to bring their spouses into the UK they meet the same resistance. You don't have to keep putting barriers up for people with Thai spouses, the UK government already does that.

Richard W, I'm just not too sure if all of your comments actually add anything to the lives of the people trying to overcome the bureaucracy in their efforts to build a life together. Be positive, I for one do not believe that we live in a country where Big Brother actually takes such a deep interest in individuals who do not break the law and I can't imagine that Thai individuals flag themselves up in a manner that others might.

Be positive and keep an open mind!

[Richard W]

It says " LTR to citizenship would have been faster than LTR to ILR. The different time scales were to encourage people to naturalise, or alternatively to punish them for choosing not to." Another way of writing this would be to say "encourage them to naturalise" and not mention "punish" if they didn't. I think we all agree that this would be the better option. Richard W , are you just writing it with a negative viewpoint because you have a hidden agenda?

I believe I encountered the presentation as 'punishment' while reading up on BCIA 2009. The times to citizenship would have been the times until then to ILR, while the times to 'permanent residence' would have been two years greater. That looks like a carrot of slightly faster citizenship and a stick of slower 'permanent residence'. (I've seen some frightening suggestions that those with ILR would actually have lost rights, rather than moving to the new 'permanent residence'.)

Presently the legal position is that Thai men and women can naturalise as British without any detriment. This is a Thai / Foreign forum so why would you discuss other countries instead of Thailand?

I've not seen the argument that Thai men can legally take on other nationalities. Don't you recall the calls for Thaksin to be stripped of Thai citizenship when he was reportedly using non-Thai passports? Note that this is not the same as acquiring two nationalities at birth, and may be different to acquiring an extra nationality as a child. The obvious protection is that the loss is not automatic - a Thai minister has to take positive steps to deprive the Thai of his Thai citizenship.

What happens with regard to other countries is relevant when it affects Thais. For example, the language tests and life in the UK test were not brought in because Thais were perceived not to be assimilating; rather they were brought in because Pakistanis were perceived not to be assimilating.

Many things you say are correct - but always with a negative bias. ... You don't have to keep putting barriers up for people with Thai spouses, the UK government already does that.

...

Be positive and keep an open mind!

Your comment suggests a predisposition to shoot the messenger. I'm not putting up the barriers, but I don't recommend rose-tinted spectacles.

If you're referring to what I've called unnecessary possession of a Thai passport, I'm serious. I was horrified to hear a colleague of Pakistani origin say, 'I haven't got round to renouncing my children's Pakistani citizenship' as though the renunciation were perfectly natural. Once he's done that, he will then get them each a 'Pakistani Origin Card', which will restore them some of the rights of Pakistanis. I suppose he might just be worried lest they become jihadis or suspected jihadis - he's at much greater risk of that than most of us. I'm glad we don't have such a terrible choice before us with regard to our minor children's Thai nationality.

Richard W, I'm just not too sure if all of your comments actually add anything to the lives of the people trying to overcome the bureaucracy in their efforts to build a life together. Be positive, I for one do not believe that we live in a country where Big Brother actually takes such a deep interest in individuals who do not break the law and I can't imagine that Thai individuals flag themselves up in a manner that others might.

The issues I have with biometric resident permits aren't a case of the Big Brother threat, though the complete ID card system had strong hints of it. Big Brother could make BRPs as straightforward to renew as photocard driving licenses - there shouldn't be any need to ask about criminal convictions and CCJs, and I really think that asking for evidence of continuous residence stretching back decades is excessive. Have you looked at form BRP(RC)? One can carry on driving while waiting for a new driving licence - one can't travel abroad while one's waiting for a new BRP, and one may also have trouble starting a new job, or, possibly, quite soon, arranging new rented accommodation if one's not in work (Code of Practice on illegal immigrants and private rented accommodation).

[bobrussell]

Not scaremongering nonsense, just nonsense IMO!

[Richard W]

There may have been calls, but he was not and there would have needed to be a change in Thai law for him, or any other Thai, to be stripped of their Thai citizenship merely because they hold another nationality.

Indeed; it is acquiring another nationality by naturalisation that makes one's Thai nationality forfeit, not just holding another nationality.

Unless you know different and can quote and link to the relevant Thai law.

Obviously I am only allowed to quote it in translation. Section 22 is the final section of Chapter 2. I quote two sections from Thailands Nationality Act B.E. 2508 as amended by Acts B.E. 2535 No. 2 and 3 (1992):

• Section 5. The acquisition of Thai nationality under Section 9 or 12, the loss of Thai nationality under Chapter 2, or the recovery of Thai nationality under Chapter 3, shall be effective upon its publication in the Government Gazette and shall have an individual effect.
• Section 22. A person of Thai nationality who bas been naturalised as an alien, or who has renounced Thai nationality, or whose Thai nationality has been revoked, shall lose Thai nationality.

I found a translation of the Nationality Act (No. 4) 2008, but there are no relevant changes.

Ok, maybe one can't travel abroad whilst awaiting renewal of a BRP; but British citizens can't travel abroad whilst awaiting renewal of their passport!

One cannot renew an expired BRP and a Thai passport simultaneously. Besides, one can bring forward a passport renewal to avoid one's passport expiring while travelling; that option is not available for a BRP.

The rest of your post is your usual scaremongering nonsense and not worth refuting again.

The BRP(RC) instruction "If you were granted Indefinite Leave to Remain more than 2 years ago please provide evidence of continuous residency in the United Kingdom" is not my scaremongering.

[Richard W]

I found a translation of the Nationality Act (No. 4) 2008, but there are no relevant changes.

Whoops!

There is a very relevant change to Section 13. This now reads (my emboldening):

• Section 13. A man or woman of Thai nationality who marries an alien and may acquire the nationality of the spouse according to his nationality law shall, if he or she desires to renounce Thai nationality, make a declaration of his or her intention before an official according to the form and in the manner prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations.

The old form of this section is the one normally quoted as allowing foreigners' wives to acquire their husband's nationality and stay Thai. Of course, this doesn't cover those who emigrate just to work, nor does it cover other family members. I doubt Thai law distinguishes registration and naturalisation.

[bobrussell]

Perhaps I am missing something (as I lose the will to live) but this discussion has drifted into irrelevancy.

The Thai law offers a Thai citizen to relinquish Thai nationality on naturalisation as a citizen of another country if he or she chooses. It does not allow someone to relinquish citizenship if it makes that person stateless. Where is that relevant?

ILR will lapse if someone has not been continuously resident inside the UK for two years or more. This is clearly one of the conditions of maintaining ILR. Less than two years continuously outside the UK is acceptable under the existing rules. To suggest this will change is pure scaremongering unless you have access to government plans nobody else has access too.

What is your problem?

Edited October 3, 2014 by bobrussell

[Richard W]

Perhaps I am missing something (as I lose the will to live) but this discussion has drifted into irrelevancy.

The Thai law offers a Thai citizen to relinquish Thai nationality on naturalisation as a citizen of another country if he or she chooses. It does not allow someone to relinquish citizenship if it makes that person stateless. Where is that relevant?

Section 13 only makes sense if Thais are allowed to acquire their spouse's nationality and remain Thai. It is therefore assumed that acquiring a spouse's nationality is an exception to loss of Thai nationality under Section 22.

There is an interpretation that Section 13 only applies to automatic acquisition - wives commonly used to acquire their husbands nationality on marriage. However, I don't know of any case where husbands automatically acquire their wife's nationality, so either the addition of men to the clause has no effect, or Section 13 does indeed imply an exception to Section 22.

ILR will lapse if someone has not been continuously resident inside the UK for two years or more. This is clearly one of the conditions of maintaining ILR. Less than two years continuously outside the UK is acceptable under the existing rules. To suggest this will change is pure scaremongering unless you have access to government plans nobody else has access too.

I hadn't spotted the apparent contradiction of asking for continuous residence! The staff guidance for the application for 'no time limit' (first BRP after ILR) only talks of absences of two years or more. The corresponding application form asks for a list of all absences of six months or more, and then asks for evidence of continuous residence! I don't believe there's a plan to ban the gap of up to but not including two years.

As my wife hasn't had any long absences, this wouldn't be a problem for her. It was merely the thought of having to muster evidence for forty or fifty years of residence that alarmed me when I checked for issues with having a BRP. I'd been looking at renewals, rather than the initial NTL application, for which I expect to be around.

Question 3.12 on the NTL form surprises me:

Please state what ties you have with;

• The country where you were born
• Any other country whose nationality you hold
• Any country where you have lived for more than 5 years

What is the function of this question? I don't like the only immigration-related answer I can come up with. Edited October 3, 2014 by Richard W

[7by7]

Richard; the Thai law you quoted, from 1992, is out of date; as has been discussed many, many times on TV.

Thais who acquire another nationality now have the option of renouncing their Thai citizenship; it is not compulsory.

As for the rest; why do you keep on dragging threads off topic by posting your pony?

Are you:

1. really that paranoid,
2. someone who knows a little but thinks he knows a lot or
3. living under a bridge?

[bobrussell]

Missed the comment made by Richard W about renewing drivers licences being easy. Just go into a suitably equipped post office, pay, have picture taken and licence arrives.

Last time i looked getting BRP involved going into a post office, paying your money and having your picture (plus fingerprints) taken. No reason to suppose it will be any more difficult in the future. It is true that not all post offices can take fingerprints yet but I would expect this technology to be universal within a very short time.

(Various proverbs spring to mind including 'Empty vessels make the most noise' and the version from Poland 'a cow that moos a lot doesn't give much milk').

[Richard W]

Last time i looked getting BRP involved going into a post office, paying your money and having your picture (plus fingerprints) taken. No reason to suppose it will be any more difficult in the future. It is true that not all post offices can take fingerprints yet but I would expect this technology to be universal within a very short time.

That's just 'enrolling the biometrics'. One has to submit an application first and wait for the letter saying one must 'enrol the biometrics'.

[steady]

At the risk of being sucked into a never ending downward spiral I will endeavour to bring a little bit of common sense to this thread. I am a simple man who likes a simple life and although I understand English I really don't understand this thread.

I have been married for almost 10 years to my Thai wife and we take care of our 3 children, 2 natural and one adopted. The natural children are half Thai and the adopted child is 100% Thai, however we have adopted her in the UK and she is now British (other than by descent) too. So all children have 2 passports, UK and Thai.

My wife has ILR and a Biometric Residency card and is just waiting until she can apply for citizenship, she has passed the KOL test and is at college to improve her English. In the meantime we have bought and sold property in both the UK and Thailand - UK joint names, Thailand her name (falang surname), all without incident whether residing in Thailand or the UK. We have travelled to Thailand, again without incident and returning to the UK is routine too.

So I assume that we are a pretty ordinary mixed nationality family and yet we have never fallen foul of any of these issues so eloquently described by RichardW. I've never even heard of them and assume that most civil servants (Thai or British) are actually unaware of them too.

So do we know just what percentage of immigrants will be affected? Out of this group how many could avoid the issues by gaining citizenship? Which leads on to the thorny issue of - is it not reasonable to assume that people who come to live in the UK should be encouraged or pressured (use your own words) to be part of the society that they live in and work at becoming British Citizens. It's just another decision which has too be made when considering the move to another country.

So that's my tuppence worth, I can't see any problems.....I can't even understand why most of what is being discussed is being discussed.

Who previously said that they were losing the will to live? Can I come and join you?

[Richard W]

My wife has ILR and a Biometric Residency card and is just waiting until she can apply for citizenship, she has passed the KOL test and is at college to improve her English.

<snip>

... we have never fallen foul of any of these issues so eloquently described by RichardW.

On this trajectory, where only a single Thai passport is ever used in the UK and it is only used before expiry, one avoids the issues. The problems arise with expiry (or loss) of Thai passport if no BRP is held and on expiry of BRP otherwise. The problem with expired passports only arose in May this year, and should only strike when people change employer. Also, it doesn't strike if employers use out of date guides, as I now suspect Bob Russell does, or decide that it's a lesser risk to accept a legal worker's documents as evidence that she is a legal worker. At least one employer has lost at an Employment Tribunal because he accepted the UKBA/UKVI statement that no immigration application or appeal had been submitted.

Which leads on to the thorny issue of - is it not reasonable to assume that people who come to live in the UK should be encouraged or pressured (use your own words) to be part of the society that they live in and work at becoming British Citizens.

And apply civil penalties for recusancy while we're at it? Wouldn't we be better integrated if we all went to church together?

There are four major categories under which people come and work here semi-permanently - work, family, refugees, and descendants of Britons. In the case of work and descendant categories, perhaps it is reasonable. For refugees, it is not reasonable. It is reasonable for a political refugee's first loyalty to be to his country - though typically not to its government.

In the case of spouses, I don't think it is right to demand that they switch allegiance. Perhaps I am not sufficiently old-fashioned, but how many of us in Britain expect our Thai-born wives to pass the cricket test?

Of course, this is not a problem if you don't think that oaths matter. Then you only have a problem if you lose your old nationality by becoming British. This isn't a practical problem for Thais, though it is for Indians.

[theoldgit]

This thread, which was started quite innocently to report a fact, has turned into an argument between two members for reasons known only to them.

A number of posts involving petty arguments have been removed, I suspect there is nothing more to say on the subject but if you have anything useful to add to the OP then feel free to do so.

Any further sniping will not be tolerated.

[Richard W]

When one gets ILR evidenced by a BRP, does one get a letter confirming that ILR has been granted? I ask because government web sites suggest that the associated letter cannot be used as evidence that ILR has been granted, and I am hoping that this assertion is false.

The reason I ask is that old BRPs are not lawfully retained by individuals, and therefore they cannot be used to establish a prima facie case that someone held ILR. A historical record is important, because a child born in Britain to someone settled here (e.g. holding ILR) is automatically British. For example, for my daughter, aside from her own passport, the smallest set of documents to show she is British is her birth certificate plus the letter recording that her mother had been granted ILR.

Does the letter for the BRP give an avowedly complete list of changes that have to be notified to UKVI? One bizarre notion I am trying to knock on the head is that if the SET(M) was accompanied by an electricity bill, one would have to tell the UKVI if one changed electricity supplier.

[Arkady]

The aspect of this topic re Thai citizens naturalising as aliens has been covered in other threads but since it is legitimate area of concern for Thais who might want to acquire British nationality after getting ILR, it might be worth rehearsing the arguments here.

Technically Section 22 of the Thai Nationality Act says that Thais who have been naturalised as aliens shall lose Thai nationality. [There is also Section 13 that deals with the specific case of Thais who acquire the nationality of a foreign spouse (as opposed to being naturalised as alien) but that is probably now redundant vis a vis the UK because, post the 1981 UK Nationality Act there is now longer any special route for the spouses of UK citizens to acquire British nationality, other than by naturalisation. Thailand is, in fact, probably now one of the few countries that still has this under Section 9 of its nationality act.]

The good news is that after some unsuccessful efforts in the early 70s (see attached 1970 letter in Thai from the IM to the MoFA) to get the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to get Thai embassies and consulates abroad to report Thais living abroad who had naturalised as aliens, the Interior Ministry seems to have given up trying to revoke the nationality of Thais who naturalise as aliens. Trawling through the Royal Gazette I have been unable to find even one example of a Thai whose nationality was revoked for being naturalised as an alien. The Interior Ministry seems to have reluctantly accepted long ago that this is a voluntary thing which is normally only applicable in the case of Thais naturalising as citizens of countries that have a strict prohibition on their new citizens retaining other nationalities and demand to see evidence of renunciation.

That has been the situation for the last 40 or so years. As for the future, who knows but it would now take a new law or amendment (or heaven forbid - a constitutional clause) that was very specific to ban any form of dual nationality. In the past powerful Thais have lobbied against bans on dual nationality. Probably they would again but occasionally something unheard of can slip through, e.g. inheritance tax. Past constitutions have made the right for Thais to enter and reside in Thailand inviolate, irrespective of any other nationality, and that will probably remain the case. Anyway under existing laws as they are enforced today, you have nothing to fear.

Letter from Interior to MFA 14 Oct 1970.doc

[Richard W]

Anyway under existing laws as they are enforced today, you have nothing to fear.

Which was never in dispute!

There is also Section 13 that deals with the specific case of Thais who acquire the nationality of a foreign spouse (as opposed to being naturalised as alien) but that is probably now redundant vis a vis the UK because, post the 1981 UK Nationality Act there is now longer any special route for the spouses of UK citizens to acquire British nationality, other than by naturalisation.

But there is a special naturalisation route for spouses, Section 6(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981, and their naturalisation certificates state that Section 6(2) was used. Before that act, wives could become British by registration under Section 6(2) of the British Nationality Act 1948. I don't see how registration and naturalisation would differ in Thai law, so I don't think the 1981 act would make any difference in the unlikely event that the first clause of Section 22 were suddenly enforced.

[MaprangHolmes]

still can not see what all of this has to do with my wife getting her biometric card

[Richard W]

still can not see what all of this has to do with my wife getting her biometric card

It expanded because 'biometric card' is the wrong term; it is a 'biometric residence permit'. This may seem like nitpicking, but there is a big difference between a 'residence permit' (which the BRP replaces) and a 'residence card', which is what those present by the EU-route get.

The relevance is that getting ILR is not the last time your wife must apply for something from UKVI. Assuming she lives in the UK for at least another ten years, she must either naturalise as British* or renew her BRP. The subtopics in this thread were:

• Request for information about BRPs beyond what is on government web site (you can inform others)
• UKVI 'speed' in providing BRPs (general interest)
• Naturalisation as next step (relevant to you)
• Government pressure (disputed) to replace ILR residence permits (valid indefinitely) by BRPs (maximum life 10 years) (not relevant to you - your wife has no choice)
• Hassle (disputed) in renewing BRPs (relevant to you)
• Government pressure (hypothesised) to naturalise (relevant to you)
• Spurious (we hope) hint of changes in conditions of ILR (relevant to you if not spurious)
• Thai law on naturalisation as an alien (largely irrelevant, as Thailand ignores it)
• Criticism of me (irrelevant to you)

*Strictly, as an EEA national, but I'm assuming British is the only choice available to her.

[7by7]

still can not see what all of this has to do with my wife getting her biometric card

Nothing at all.

Your wife, and other Thais in her situation, have nothing to fear; they simply either naturalise as British when qualified or renew their BRP in 10 years time.

The procedure for replacing a lost or stolen BRP is straightforward, as is renewing one which has expired. See Guidance on applying for a replacement biometric residence permit: BRP(RC). Certainly no more onerous than renewing a photo card driving licence.

But I would recommend naturalising as once British she will remain British, unless she commits a serious criminal offence or is a terrorist or similar!

If British she will not have to concern herself about her ILR lapsing if you and she move abroad or about visas for European holidays etc.

As Arkady confirms above, naturalising as British will have no effect on her Thai nationality.

But whether she does so or not is a decision for her and you to make.

[Richard W]

7by7 has claimed that applying for renewing a biometric residence permit: BRP(RC) is no more onerous than renewing a photo card driving licence. I can only conclude that he hasn't read the guidance properly. At a top level, the steps required are:

• Obtain passport photos to the standard required for passport photos.
• Gather documents required.
• Complete form.
• Post form and accompaniments.
• Enrol biometrics after arrival of letter from UKVI.
• Wait in for DX courier to deliver BRP.

Getting correct passport photos is fairly stressful - taking guaranteed acceptable passport photos and checking photos in passport applications are a couple of nice little earners. When I was younger I could just use a photo booth. The guidance can be read as UKVI rejecting the application and pocketing the fee if the photos don't meet the standard. Steps 1, 3 and 4 are required if one renews a photo card driving licence by post - it's much simpler to just go to a post office to do all three in one visit.

I took three steps as not worth mentioning in the comparison, though the third can be a severe constraint:

• Ensure passport is current.
• Obtain the form, BRP(RC). DVLA normally sends one the form as part of the reminder! Will UKVI include the form when it writes to tell you you must apply for a renewal?
• Be in UK.

My main concern is with gathering the documents required - for which renewing a driving licence has no parallel. The safe method is to gather the documents requested. I conclude that 7by7 hasn't looked at BRP(RC) itself.

[MaprangHolmes]

As said I really can not see the point of all this rubbish also I really can not see what is so stressful with using a photo booth, they are very simple to use but if you really do have a problem with them, most post offices and shops will do them for the same price of a photo booth around £5. I think you are just trying to find anything to argue with people about go out have a walk, chill out life's to short to argue about rubbish that really does not matter. Anyway my with will be applying for citizenship so all this rubbish you are going on about will not apply to her.

I would respectfully ask that this topic be closed as it has gone so far of course as to what I opened it about.

Edited October 6, 2014 by MaprangHolmes

[theoldgit]

As said I really can not see the point of all this rubbish also I really can not see what is so stressful with using a photo booth, they are very simple to use but if you really do have a problem with them, most post offices and shops will do them for the same price of a photo booth around £5. I think you are just trying to find anything to argue with people about go out have a walk, chill out life's to short to argue about rubbish that really does not matter. Anyway my with will be applying for citizenship so all this rubbish you are going on about will not apply to her.

I would respectfully ask that this topic be closed as it has gone so far of course as to what I opened it about.

I'm inclined to agree

//CLOSED//