Allegations of bias in Home Office funding decision

What happened

Mr L sells online resources for teaching English and wanted to help third country nationals (people from outside the European Union) who were preparing for life in the UK. In 2013 he submitted an application to the Home Office for funding for his project. He applied to the European Integration Fund, a fund to support initiatives which help third country nationals integrate into European society. His application included the need to develop software for the project. The Home Office turned down his application. It failed on, among other things, a lack of in-depth analysis of its target group.

Mr L took on board the Home Office's feedback and made a second application in early 2014, again requesting funding to develop software for the project. In his application Mr L noted that he hoped to 'learn from the experience and potentially create an effective template for deployments to other communities'. The Home Office again refused Mr L's application, this time on the basis that there was a 'conflict of interest' – that Mr L and his company could potentially use the software they hoped to develop through the funding for financial gain after the project had finished.

Mr L complained to the Home Office, saying he did not intend to profit from the software he was developing. The Home Office told him that it was against Fund rules for applicants to gain financially from projects. It explained to Mr L that his application had been assessed by a two-person assessment panel. The Home Office reassured Mr L that the people on the assessment panel for his second application were different from those on the first assessment panel, to avoid any unconscious bias. However, that had meant that any issues missed by the first assessment panel could be picked up by the panel assessing the second application. The Home Office commented that it would not be fair or transparent to overrule the assessment process.

Mr L complained to us that the Home Office had introduced a new criterion which it had not included in its literature and guidance, and which had only been raised in his second application. Mr L was concerned that the Home Office was biased against profit making organisations applying for such funding. He said that he had wasted a great deal of time applying for funding.

What we found

We did not uphold Mr L's complaint. European legislation and the Home Office's own guidance were clear on the 'non-profit making' requirement. The guidance reflecting this point was available to Mr L at the time of his applications. It was reasonable for the Home Office to take this issue into account. It would have been better if the Home Office had included the not-for-profit issue in its first feedback to Mr L. But having said that, we did not think this failure was a serious fault.

We noted that Mr L clarified that he did not intend to make a profit and that he believed the Home Office should have discussed with him his comment about deployment to other communities. However, the Home Office had a two-stage assessment process, as well as a QA panel for what it called 'marginal applications'. Mr L's second application was considered by the QA panel, which agreed with the original refusal decision. Overall, the Home Office handled Mr L's application reasonably, and we agreed that if it had approached Mr L to discuss his application, that would not have been fair to other applicants.