Following through might have managed expectations

What happened

In winter 2013, Mr C's stepdaughter applied for leave to remain in the UK. Mr C, a British citizen, was her sponsor. In early 2014 UKVI refused the application because there was insufficient evidence that Mr C and his wife had sole responsibility for his stepdaughter's care. Also UKVI said that Mr C failed to show evidence that he met the income threshold.

Mr C telephoned a visa section overseas and the Croydon contact centre frequently after the decision, and exchanged emails with both these offices. The overseas visa section told Mr C that he should appeal the decision, as did the Croydon contact centre. The Croydon contact centre also promised Mr C several times that staff would call him back but did not do so. In addition, the Croydon contact centre asked Mr C to moderate his language after he had called members of staff 'ignorant gits'.

After Mr C got in touch, the visa section overseas reviewed its decision on Mr C's stepdaughter's application on several occasions and accepted further evidence from Mr C. Having done so, it advised Mr C that the issue of sole responsibility had now been met, but that the matter of the income threshold had not. Staff told Mr C that he could appeal the decision once a separate Home Office appeal about the legality of having an income threshold had been decided (the Home Office won its appeal about the legality of the income threshold in summer 2014) or his stepdaughter could reapply.

In spring 2014, Mr C told UKVI that he was suffering from mental health issues and that his stepdaughter had been self–harming. Therefore, UKVI invited Mr C to provide further evidence that he met the income threshold. UKVI's records indicated that Mr C provided pay slips, bank statements and an employment record.

Later in 2014, UKVI accepted the further evidence that Mr C provided and granted his stepdaughter's visa.

What we found

We partly upheld this complaint. Having obtained the Home Office file, we could not track when Mr C had sent supporting evidence to UKVI. However, it was evident from the date of certain documents, such as a P60 from 2014, that Mr C had supplied evidence sometime after making the application in winter 2013. We also noted that UKVI's records stated that Mr C had sent it additional information after the application was made and that UKVI recorded that it was not until he sent particular documents in early summer 2014 that the Immigration Rules had been met with regard to income threshold. On the balance of probability, therefore, we considered it was likely that UKVI's original decision to refuse the application was not unreasonable.

In relation to Mr C's communication with UKVI, he was advised to appeal the decision on his stepdaughter's application if he disagreed with it. That advice was appropriate.

It was not surprising that Mr C was confused about how to proceed with his stepdaughter's case. UKVI told Mr C to appeal the decision when the issue of sole responsibility and income threshold was not met. They then told him the application would be put on hold when only the income threshold was not met and then advised him he could reapply. While telling Mr C this, UKVI also reconsidered its decision several times.

Having said that, UKVI reconsidered Mr C's case when it was under no obligation to do so. The fact that it did this meant that Mr C's stepdaughter did not have to appeal the decision or make a further application, both of which would have taken time and money. Therefore, Mr C ultimately benefitted from UKVI's reconsiderations.

UKVI responded to Mr C's emails and telephone calls in a timely manner and staff were polite and courteous to him. It was appropriate for UKVI to warn Mr C to moderate his tone and language when he made personal comments about staff.

However, there were occasions when the Croydon contact centre promised to call Mr C back and did not do so, causing Mr C frustration and distress. It would have been better if UKVI had followed its complaint guidance and advised Mr C that his comments would be passed on to the overseas visa section, which would respond. Nevertheless, we accepted that the Croydon contact centre had already apologised for not ringing Mr C back when staff said they would.