UKVI's failure to provide appropriate information caused emotional and financial injustice

What happened

In summer 2012 Mr N, an American national, applied for an extension to his civil partner visa and provided UKVI with his passport. In autumn 2012, Mr N contacted UKVI three times to advise them that he needed to return home for a family emergency; his brother had been in a serious car accident.

UKVI told Mr N that if he requested his passport back his application would be treated as withdrawn and his application fee would not be refunded.

Mr N then asked for his passport, but UKVI did not return it. Mr N returned to the USA using an Emergency Travel Document (ETD).

At the end of 2012, Mr N's passport was finally returned to him, his application was treated as withdrawn and his application fee was kept by UKVI.

Mr N complained to UKVI but was told its actions were appropriate.

What we found

It was technically correct for UKVI to treat Mr N's application as withdrawn following his request for his documents to be returned in autumn 2012. However, other circumstances led us to counter that view. Namely, that during Mr N's three contacts with them in autumn 2012 UKVI had failed to tell him that he could ask for his application to be expedited because of a family emergency.

UKVI should have asked Mr N about the nature of his family emergency. If it had done so, Mr N's circumstances meant that he would probably have been eligible to have his case expedited and that he would probably have chosen that option. If Mr N had taken that option, his application would have been determined and his passport returned. Also, there would have been no need for him to obtain an ETD.

UKVI mishandled Mr N's case. It failed to react sensitively to his family emergency and did not provide him with appropriate information. We found that this caused Mr N distress, that he lost his application fee and had to pay for an ETD.

Putting it right

UKVI apologised for its handling of Mr N's case. It also reimbursed Mr N for the full cost of his summer 2012 application and for the costs associated with obtaining his ETD.

UKVI paid Mr N £500 in recognition of the worry and distress it caused him at a time when his brother had been in a serious accident and later died. We partly upheld the complaint.