Wrong decision on settlement application

What happened

Mr R applied for settlement in the UK in early 2013. In summer 2013 his father died overseas. In autumn 2013 UKVI refused Mr R's application on the basis that he had not been lawfully in the UK for the 10 years necessary to gain indefinite leave to remain. Mr R appealed. In late 2013 the presenting officer's unit reviewed Mr R's case. It decided that the decision was factually incorrect and that UKVI should withdraw from the appeal and reconsider the decision. In spring 2014 UKVI reconsidered the decision and granted Mr R settlement. Mr R complained about the service he had received and asked UKVI to compensate him for having to appeal and incur additional legal costs and for the impact on him for missing his father's funeral overseas, and his inability to travel to see his Family for such a long time. UKVI agreed to reimburse Mr R £144 for his appeal hearing fee and pay him £250 consolatory payment. Mr R was dissatisfied with this amount because he had hoped to have his full legal fees paid and a higher amount of compensation to recognise the impact of not being able to attend his father's funeral.

What we found

We partly upheld this complaint. Although UKVI did not decide Mr R's application within the six–month timescale, the two–month delay was not unreasonable. It had a backlog of work and Mr R had not asked it to expedite his application to see his father or attend his funeral. UKVI made a mistake when it decided Mr R's application, and his application should have been granted in autumn 2013. Mr R complained about the matter three times in 2014 before UKVI took any action. While it decided Mr R's claim for compensation, it failed to provide a response that addressed his concerns.

Putting it right

UKVI wrote to Mr R apologising for the errors it had made in dealing with his application and his complaint to it. But we were satisfied that its offer to reimburse Mr R's appeal fee and the consolatory payment offered was appropriate in the circumstances. We were not persuaded that Mr R missed his father's funeral because of UKVI's mishandling of his application or that UKVI should be responsible for Mr R's legal fees.