UK Visas and Immigration gave misleading information which led to errors and distress

What happened

Mrs G got her primary medical degree in Pakistan but completed a masters and a diploma at institutions in the UK.

In 2009 she was granted a visa to work as a doctor in the UK but she was not allowed work as a doctor in training, that is, to develop new skills and further her medical training.

In 2010 the Immigration Rules changed. A national of a country outside the European Economic Area could work in the UK as a doctor in training if they had got their primary (bachelor's level) medical degree in the UK. However, the guidance with the Immigration Rules specified that a medical degree from the UK, not a primary medical degree, was needed.

Mr G contacted UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) in early 2012 about his wife's visa in light of the guidance he had seen. However, when UKVI reconsidered Mrs G's visa, it did not lift the restriction.

In summer 2012 Mr G and his wife went to the Public Enquiry Office where they applied for an extension to Mrs G's visa. They paid extra to use the UKVI's 'premium' service to try and explain their confusion about Mrs G's case. Again, the restriction on Mrs G's visa was not lifted and Mr G was unsure why.

During our previous involvement in the case, UKVI wrongly told us that there was a window between spring 2010 and summer 2012 when a degree (not a primary medical degree) from a UK institution would be sufficient to lift the doctor in training restriction under the Immigration Rules. On that basis, we asked UKVI to honour its offer from early 2012 to consider Mrs G's visa under the Immigration Rules in place at that time. UKVI agreed to do this and lifted the restriction in winter 2013. However, it refused to offer any compensation for loss of earnings or the distress to Mrs G of not being able to further her career. It considered lifting the restriction was a sufficient remedy.

In addition Mr G said he had not been compensated for his time spent trying to resolve the complaint, or for using the Public Enquiry Office's premium service.

What we found

UKVI wrongly told us and Mr G that Mrs G would have been able to have the restriction on her visa lifted between 2010 and summer 2012. In fact, Mrs G never qualified to have the restriction on her visa lifted under the Immigration Rules, as her primary medical degree was from Pakistan, not the UK. Mrs G had probably benefited from UKVI's mistake because the restriction on her visa would not otherwise have been lifted until she got indefinite leave to stay in the UK.

The Immigration Rules and guidance were at odds because the guidance did not specify that a primary medical degree from the UK was needed. Until we pointed this out, UKVI did not realise that this was the case. As a result, Mr G and his wife had not received a full explanation from UKVI about Mrs G's case until reading our report. We considered that UKVI's actions had unfairly raised Mrs G's expectations about her visa in 2012 and caused her distress by failing to properly explain the situation for two years.

Mr G and his wife had gone to the Public Enquiry Office to use UKVI's premium service in summer 2012, so that they could resolve their confusion over the guidance. However, their concerns were not settled, which meant they had made a wasted journey and unnecessarily paid for this service.

Putting it right

UKVI apologised to Mrs G for its handling of her case and paid her £250 compensation. It also paid £70 to Mr G and his wife for the cost of using the premium service and their travel costs. UKVI agreed to review its guidance to make sure that it reflects the Immigration Rules.