UKVI did not compensate enough for hardship

What happened

Mr K came to the UK as an asylum seeker in 2002. UKVI refused his asylum application and in 2007 he was sent back to his home country. However, while he had been in the UK he had become a father, and in early 2010 Mr K returned to the UK illegally.

He applied for permission to stay in the UK so he could keep seeing his daughter, but UKVI rejected his application and told him to leave the UK. Instead Mr K appealed against the decision. In early 2012, a tribunal ruled Mr K could stay in the UK as being returned to his home country would breach his human rights because he would not be able to see his daughter.

UKVI should have implemented the tribunal decision and issued the paperwork to prove he could stay in the UK soon after it was made, but they did not do so.  Without the papers to prove he could stay and work in the UK, Mr K became destitute. He was homeless and did not even have the bus fare to visit his daughter. In autumn 2012, unable to support himself any longer, Mr K got help from a solicitor under the legal aid scheme. This enabled him to get funding while he waited for the papers that would grant him permission to stay in the UK. A month afterwards, UKVI dealt with Mr K's case and gave him 30 months' discretionary leave to remain in the UK, but this did not allow him to claim Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) while he found work. Mr K appealed against UKVI's decision.

In early 2013 Mr K's solicitors told UKVI they intended to take legal action if it did not compensate Mr K for the losses he had suffered while he had waited for it to conclude his case. UKVI did not respond to that letter. In summer 2013 Mr K's solicitors asked us to look into Mr K's case and we asked UKVI to resolve the complaint. Two months later UKVI agreed to pay Mr K the JSA he would have received if it had dealt with his case properly. Mr K's solicitors refused this offer. They asked UKVI to reconsider the amount and to pay Mr K lost earnings instead of JSA as this would have been more money. They also asked UKVI to pay Mr K compensation for the hardship he had endured. UKVI refused to increase the amount it had offered and so Mr K asked us to look into his case.

What we found

UKVI should have taken the action that the tribunal told them to take in early 2012. And, when UKVI finally did this in winter 2013, it gave Mr K the wrong type of leave so he could not apply for JSA. When UKVI considered Mr K's claim for compensation it did not deal with it properly. UKVI offered Mr K an appropriate amount (the JSA) for his actual financial losses, but it failed to consider or offer him any compensation for the impact its mistake had had on him.

Putting it right

UKVI apologised to Mr K for the delay in implementing his tribunal appeal decision. It paid him around £2,500 for the JSA he had lost, and £1,000 for the distress and hardship its delay had caused him.

UKVI also agreed that Mr K was entitled to apply for permission to stay permanently in the UK from an earlier date to allow for its delay in making the decision.