Poor communication by UK Visas and Immigration

What happened

Mr L first came to the UK in 1997. In late summer 2011 he applied for settlement on the basis of long residence. UKVI did not accept that he had provided evidence that he had lived in the UK for 14 years, and refused his application. Mr L appealed that decision. At the tribunal hearing in early 2012, the judge found that Mr L had provided evidence that he had lived in the UK since 1997, but he had not attained the level of knowledge of language and life in the UK to be granted settlement. The judge dismissed the appeal, but said that UKVI should 'bear in mind' that Mr L could be given two years leave to meet the knowledge of language and life in the UK requirement.

After the hearing, Mr L's representatives contacted UKVI, who told them his case would be sent back to the casework team for further action or consideration. However, UKVI staff took no action. Mr L sent UKVI evidence of English language qualifications, and his representatives and MP contacted UKVI to ask for updates on his position. However, it was not until early 2014 that UKVI told Mr L's representatives that he needed to make another application for settlement.

When Mr L complained to us, UKVI looked at his case again and granted him two more years leave so that he could apply for settlement. UKVI said that its decision took into account the time that had passed, and did not mean it would have reached the same decision if it had made it earlier.

What we found

We partly upheld this complaint. The judge's statement that Mr L could be granted an extension of stay in order to satisfy the requirement of knowledge of language and life in the UK was a comment, not a determination that UKVI was bound to follow. We did not therefore think UKVI was wrong not to grant him two years leave. However, despite telling Mr L's representatives it would review his case, it did not do so, nor did it give him a proper response about his position. We did not think UKVI would have made a positive decision if it had looked at his case, as it had no application to consider. But it was likely that UKVI would have told him he needed to make an application for settlement, and that his application would have been successful. Although Mr L lost that opportunity, UKVI largely put that right by granting him two years leave to remain in the UK. The fee for applying for settlement has increased since 2012 when the judge made his decision. However, other than some uncertainty caused by UKVI failing to give Mr L a proper response, we did not find that the stress and anxiety he suffered was the fault of UKVI.

Putting it right

UKVI apologised to Mr L and allowed him to submit an application for settlement and pay the fee that applied in 2012.