UKVI's system for accessing phone call recordings failed

What happened

Mr F's wife and stepdaughter had been granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK and wished to apply for naturalisation as British citizens. Mr F phoned UKVI's helpline to confirm the criteria and documents needed. He said that the helpline officer told him that his wife and stepdaughter could submit the same documents as they did for indefinite leave to remain. If true, that was incorrect information. A week or so later, the helpline officer emailed Mr F with correct information about the criteria and documents required. Mrs F and her daughter provided documents based on what Mr F said he was told in his first phone call, and submitted applications that did not meet the required criteria.

Mr F misunderstood UKVI's letter asking for the correct documents, wrongly believing it had refused his wife's application. He then tried to appeal a decision that had not been made. UKVI did not tell Mr F he could not appeal a decision it had yet to make. Subsequently during other phone conversations some months later with UKVI officers, Mr F said that it had told him that it had granted his stepdaughter naturalisation but not his wife. Mr F said that in another call a UKVI officer told him his wife need not meet some criteria because it had 'messed up the case'. The information Mr F alleged he was given during these calls would have been incorrect.

UKVI refused Mr F's wife and stepdaughter's applications because they did not meet the criteria or submit the correct documents. Mr F asked UKVI to reconsider its decision and it did so, but did not charge him the fee for this. Mr F complained to UKVI that he had been misadvised but was unhappy with UKVI's response to his complaint.

UKVI told us that it had recorded the conversations between Mr F and the helpline but, due to a problem with the back-up system, it could not access the recordings and could not make a transcript. UKVI did not explain how frequently the system was checked and how and when the fault was discovered.

What we found

We partly upheld this complaint.

We were unable to determine whether UKVI misled Mr F over the phone because we could not listen to the calls. UKVI could not say how and when the fault was discovered, or how frequently it checked the system.  We concluded that its inability to access recordings of the calls was a failing.

UKVI had sent the correct information about naturalisation before Mr F's wife and stepdaughter submitted their applications, and so it had not misadvised Mr F. However, UKVI did not tell Mr F he had appealed a decision it had not yet made, and so subsequent communications were at cross purposes. UKVI did not address the issues in Mr F's complaint.

UKVI's failure to tell Mr F his appeal was premature and to address his complaint was an injustice.

Putting it right

UKVI apologised to Mr F and paid him £150 compensation.