UK Visas and Immigration's guidance could have been more helpful and it failed to properly address a complaint

What happened

Mr C applied for a permanent EEA residence card but UKVI refused because he did not have enough evidence of Comprehensive Sickness Insurance (CSI). Mr C complained to UKVI and appealed the decision at the same time.

UKVI did not initially reply to Mr C's complaint, but following our involvement (on the basis that Mr C told us he was not seeking legal action, although he was in fact actually appealing the decision) it responded and explained that applicants must hold CSI, which Mr C did not. It declined to comment further because the matter was going to appeal. Mr C lost his appeal because the judge said that his European Health Insurance Cards (one form of evidence of CSI) were undated and so he could not show that they covered all his stay in the UK.

Mr C then complained to UKVI that he had been misdirected by guidance on its website about what could signify evidence of CSI. UKVI apologised for giving him wrong information but clarified that he had failed to show evidence of CSI. UKVI did not address Mr C's concerns about the website guidance.

What we found

UKVI's website information about what could constitute evidence of CSI was strict, but it needed to be because there were only a few documents that could demonstrate CSI. However, there was potential for confusion in the case of undated European Health Insurance Cards, such as Mr C's, where supplementary evidence might be required to prove the validity dates of the cards.

Whilst we acknowledged that Mr C thought this had affected his case, we noted it had been put before a judge who had decided that Mr C did not show he had CSI for the period he claimed. We also noted that Mr C had told us that there were gaps in his European Health Insurance Cards.

It was reasonable for UKVI not to engage with Mr C's complaint while his appeal was ongoing. However, it ought to have explained this to Mr C rather than ignoring his complaint. UKVI also gave Mr C wrong information during the complaints process and did not respond to Mr C's concerns about its website guidance.

Putting it right

UKVI apologised to Mr C for its poor complaint handling. It agreed to review its guidance in relation to supplementary evidence that might be required to demonstrate comprehensive sickness insurance.