Expired Licence, a Flight at Ten, and a Proctor Who Knows Her

Decision: do not admit her to this appointment. The requirement is one unexpired government photo ID. Each item fails on its own terms:

• Driver's licence, expired eleven days. It is the right document type, correct date of birth, and the name variation is acceptable, but the policy's exception is explicitly conditional on the primary ID being otherwise valid. Expiration is the defect, so the name-variation exception does not rescue it.
• Paper renewal notice. No photograph, no reliable document security features, and it is evidence of a pending document, not an identity document.
• Employer badge. First name only, no date of birth, and employer-issued. It cannot match a registered legal name.
• Phone photo of a birth certificate. A digital image of a document is not the document; it carries no photograph; and a birth certificate proves birth details, not current appearance.
• Social media profile. Self-published, unverified, and not an identity document under any reading of the policy.

Four insufficient items do not combine into one sufficient item. Each is insufficient for a different reason, and none cures the expiration.

Before refusing, check the manual for a documented supervisor exception covering recently expired ID supported by a second government photo ID. If such a provision exists, the supervisor on duty obtains authorisation from PSI and records the authorisation reference; it is not a proctor judgement call. If the manual contains no such provision, there is no exception to grant, however sympathetic the circumstances. The 10:00 flight is not a factor in the determination, and stating that plainly is kinder than implying the outcome might change.

Record in the delivery platform and the center log:

• Time of arrival, time of refusal, and the appointment ID.
• Reason code for refusal (expired primary ID), stated in policy language, not in commentary about the candidate.
• A factual list of documents presented, with document types and expiry dates.
• Whether a supervisor exception was considered and the outcome, including any authorisation reference if one was sought.
• That the candidate was informed of the reschedule and appeal route.

Do not retain photocopies, scans, or phone images of the documents she offered. The birth certificate image in particular is sensitive personal data that the center has no basis to keep once the verification decision is made; note its existence in the record without copying it. Do not photograph her phone screen, and do not ask her to hand over the device.

Do not mark her as a no-show if the manual classifies a refused admission as an incident requiring a report; use the correct disposition so the fee and reschedule entitlements follow the right path.

Tell her: the specific requirement that was not met, that the decision is procedural and not a judgement about her identity, the reschedule or refund mechanism, and how to request review. Give it in writing where the manual provides a notice. Do not speculate about how a reviewer will decide, and do not promise that a photograph of the renewed licence sent later will be accepted.

If she becomes distressed, keep the conversation in a non-public area away from the check-in queue and finish the documentation before the next candidate is processed.

Decline, and separate the two issues in the response. Personal recognition is not a verification method. The policy is document-based precisely because familiarity is unreliable: staff recognise frequent candidates, confuse similar-looking people, and are susceptible to social pressure. Accepting recognition would create two classes of candidate - those a proctor happens to know, admitted on different evidence than everyone else - and that is an integrity and equity problem, not a courtesy.

Say it in operational terms rather than as a challenge to the proctor's honesty: "I don't doubt you know her. I can't substitute recognition for an unexpired document, and if I did, the admission record would show a variance I can't defend in an audit." Then route the decision to the supervisor so the proctor is not being overruled by a peer in front of the candidate.

What the statement triggers:

• A note in the incident record that a staff member asserted prior familiarity and was declined, so the record is complete if the candidate later complains.
• A file check on the earlier check-in eight months ago. What document was recorded? Was it within validity then? Was there already a name-variation note?
• A check of whether that proctor has a pattern of relaxing ID checks for returning candidates. Sample a small number of that proctor's recent admissions and compare recorded document types and expiry dates against the requirement.
• If the sample shows a pattern, it becomes a supervision and training finding, escalated separately - not folded into this refusal.