Did you not receive a passport within three weeks and had to issue a temporary passport?
You may deserve your money back.
The Registrar of the Small Claims Court, Mert Dorfman, required the Population and Immigration Authority to refund a portion of the amount of fees for issuing temporary passports in Israel. The judge rejected the Authority's request not to accept the claim since it could create broad ramifications and the filing of many similar claims.
This is a small claim case in which the plaintiff sought to compel the Population and Immigration Authority to refund him the amount of fees he paid in Israel for the issuance of temporary passports to his minor daughters, since permanent passports did not arrive at the expected date. The plaintiff's main claim is that at the Population Authority office in Sakhnin he was assured that within two weeks By three the passports will arrive.
Moreover, the plaintiff claimed that a promise was recorded on the Population Authority website that the passport would be issued and sent by Israel Post and it is expected to arrive within one to three weeks, and the Population Authority did not fulfill its commitment, and he was therefore forced to issue temporary passports to his daughters and pay additional fees.
The plaintiff also claimed that his decision to book an appointment for the issuance of biometric passports within a month before the date of travel, is a reasonable decision under the circumstances of the matter.
Israeli passport (illustration), photo: Ai.
Nose.
times
On the other hand, the Population Authority objected to accepting the claim.
According to her, the Authority or any of its representatives did not promise the plaintiff that biometric passports would arrive at one time or another.
Even if such a promise was given, it is a promise given without authority and without legal validity.
Registrar Dorfman, as mentioned, partially accepted the claim and ordered the Population Authority to compensate the claimant in the amount of NIS 830 for paying fees for ordering temporary passports, and another NIS 500 in court costs.
In the ruling, it was determined that the Population Authority violated its commitment to issue permanent passports within a period of up to 3 weeks, and the plaintiff was forced to order temporary passports in the National Bank of Israel and pay additional fees for them.
"My position is that it is about the publication of the time frame that legally binds the Authority. In this official publication on its website, the Authority created a factual presentation to the public according to which the passport that will be ordered will arrive within a time frame of between one and three weeks. The plaintiff was certainly entitled to rely on this presentation Therefore, those who read the publication of the Authority on its website regarding the expected time frame for the arrival of the passport, understand that this is a promise by the Authority.
Queues for passports, photo: Yehoshua Yosef
This promise is legally binding, and therefore there is also an interest for the Population Authority to fulfill its commitment regarding the arrival of the passport within a time frame of one to three weeks," the registrar wrote in his decision and added: "Regarding the authority's claim that the plaintiff should be attributed significant contributory guilt, I reject the claim this.
The plaintiff relied on a publication on the Authority's website regarding the time frames for the arrival of the passports that were valid at the time."
Before the hearing of the case, the Population Authority asked the court to delay the decision on the case, in view of the fact that, according to it, the Minister of the Interior had decided to establish a broad policy on the issue of fee refunds, and the issue is under discussion and accepting the claim now could create broad consequences and the filing of many similar claims.
The court rejected the request by stating that it is not the duty of the small claims court to give priority or delay the investigation of cases according to the broad implications that its ruling may create, and discussed the case on its merits, as stated above.
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us