UKVI failed to take action to implement a successful appeal and consider a complaint

What happened

Mr L complained that UKVI unfairly refused his application for leave to remain in early 2011. Mr L subsequently appealed the decision, at a First–tier Tribunal, an independent tribunal that deals with appeals against immigration decisions, and again at the Upper Tribunal, which looks at decisions made by the First–tier Tribunal. The Upper Tribunal overturned the First–tier Tribunal's decision at the end of 2011. Some four months later, in spring 2012, UKVI issued Mr L's leave to remain.

Mr L complained to UKVI in summer 2012. He was unhappy that UKVI did not apply the Upper Tribunal's decision until spring 2012. He said he incurred extra costs because of the delay and the initial unfair refusal of his application. Mr L was concerned that the original decision to refuse his visa had contributed to a loss of earnings as he could not take all the work he was offered. Mr L also complained that he was unable to travel during this time, and said he had been unable to visit his mother overseas while she was recovering from an operation, which had caused him distress. Mr L's MP contacted UKVI in spring 2013. In early summer 2013, UKVI offered Mr L £50 in compensation for poor communication. Mr L brought his complaint to us.

What we found

We partly upheld this complaint. UKVI failed to apply a policy that would have allowed it to be flexible on the evidence it asked for when it first assessed Mr L's application for leave to remain. However, on the balance of probabilities, if UKVI had requested the appropriate information, there is no evidence that Mr L or his representative had sufficiently understood the requirements to be able to meet the request, so Mr L's application would probably still have had to go through the appeal process.

There was also failure to take action to issue Mr L's visa after the Upper Tribunal's decision in late 2011; failure to take action for six months before beginning to consider Mr L's claim for compensation and four months' processing time; failure to communicate this process to Mr L; the failure to offer an appropriate remedy when UKVI first accepted responsibility for the delay in issuing Mr L's visa after the Upper Tribunal's decision. Had these errors not occurred, Mr L would probably have been issued a visa in early 2012 instead of spring 2012. This caused Mr L emotional distress, and considerable frustration, and prevented him from travelling to visit his mother when she was ill.

Putting it right

To remedy the injustice UKVI wrote to Mr L to apologise for the mistakes we identified. It also paid him £350 to compensate for the worry, anguish and distress caused by his inability to travel to see his mother, and also to recognise the inconvenience, additional time, trouble and disempowerment caused by its handling of Mr L's complaint, and its failure to acknowledge, or act on, communications from Mr L's representatives chasing his leave to remain.