Poor complaint handling exacerbated fiancé's grief over bereavement

What happened

Ms G, an American national, tried to enter the UK via Dunkirk in 2011 with Mr A, a British national. Border Force searched Ms G including her sealed mail and found she had a prescription for antipsychotic medication for depression and a pamphlet on how to commit suicide. They refused Ms G entry because they had evidence from the Republic of Ireland that Ms G had been issued with a deportation notice, that she had inadequate evidence of funds to support herself and that she had medical issues, which according to Border Force guidance prevented her from entering the UK. Border Force made a note of its decision on the Home Office case information database.

Ms G travelled to Paris and submitted a visitor visa application to the British Embassy. UKVI refused this because it was not satisfied that Ms G was a genuine visitor who intended to leave at the end of her stay or that she had resources to support herself during her stay.

Ms G made another application, but died of an overdose before UKVI made its determination. Unaware of these events, UKVI issued a refusal notice on the basis that Ms G had not provided evidence of her accommodation in France or any assets there. UKVI noted that Ms G had no evidence of a return flight to the USA. UKVI said she did not show sufficiently strong family, social or economic ties to the USA or France to show that she intended to leave the UK. Lastly, UKVI noted that Ms G had no evidence of Mr A's passport and that he could accommodate her for the duration of her visit. UKVI noted that Ms G provided bank statements but she had not provided origin of her funds and no evidence that they were readily available.

Mr A complained to UKVI and Border Force. Both organisations considered they had acted appropriately with regards to Ms G.

Mr A's MP approached the Home Office minister with his concerns about both UKVI and Border Force. Mr A's complaint was passed to various senior staff. Eventually, he received only a partial response.

What we found

We partly upheld this complaint. There was no evidence that Border Force was prejudiced against Ms G and there were no grounds to question its decision to refuse her entry to the UK in autumn 2011. It had followed procedure in terms of reading Ms G's sealed correspondence.

However, Border Force failed to follow its guidance in relation to dealing with vulnerable people. In light of the evidence it found about Ms G's medication and suicide pamphlet, Border Force should have assessed Ms G's well–being. It failed to do so. However, even if Border Force had followed its most recent guidance on the matter, it was unlikely that it would have intervened, or changed its actions significantly.

UKVI staff at the embassy in Paris would not have known about Border Force's note on the case information database because they did not have access to it. However, even if UKVI had seen Border Force's note and followed its up–to–date guidance, staff were unlikely to have handled Ms G's case differently.

We had no grounds to question UKVI's reasons for refusing Ms G's visa applications. However, we were critical that UKVI destroyed the supporting documents that Ms G supplied with her application. Although it was UKVI's process to destroy such documents after 13 months, it was unreasonable to do so in this case, when there was an ongoing complaint.

Neither UKVI nor Border Force addressed all the points that Mr A raised in his correspondence with them. There were significant delays in UKVI and Border Force responding to his concerns. They failed to respond to a request he made for documentation from Ms G's case.

Putting it right

UKVI and Border Force both apologised for their handling of the complaint and each paid Mr A £350 in compensation. UKVI agreed to review its procedures for destroying supporting documentation from case files in the wake of an ongoing complaint. Both organisations agreed to complete their consideration of Mr A's request for documentation.