UKVI's wrong decision left woman in her eighties stranded abroad

What happened

Mrs P was an East European citizen who had indefinite leave to enter the UK. When she and her late husband visited Eastern Europe in 2009, he became ill and could not travel back to the UK. After Mr P's death in 2013, Mrs P applied to return to the UK to live with her daughter and son–in–law but her application was refused on the basis that she did not meet paragraph 18 of the Immigration Rules because she had been away from the UK for more than two years. The entry clearance officer also said she did not meet paragraph 19 because she had only lived in the UK for fifteen months. Mrs P was severely sight impaired with a number of other diagnosed health problems. Her daughter and son–in–law were not able to remain with her in Eastern Europe and were extremely anxious about her health and welfare. Mrs P's grandson had to go to Eastern Europe to care for her. UKVI reviewed its decision six weeks later and revoked the refusal, granting her a returning resident visa.

What we found

UKVI did not properly and fully consider Mrs P's application at first. It should have taken into account Mrs P's strong ties with the UK and the fact that her stay in Eastern Europe was prolonged through no fault of her own. We found that, on the balance of probabilities, had UKVI acted properly, it would have granted Mrs P a visa. We found that Mrs P's daughter and son–in–law experienced a lot of stress and anxiety because of UKVI's failings and they incurred financial losses. This included loss of income for Mrs P's daughter, travel and other expenses involved in extra journeys to Eastern Europe to care for Mrs P. We also found that they had to employ a solicitor to prepare for an appeal (the decision was revoked before the appeal was heard), which also involved additional expense.

Putting it right

UKVI accepted our findings, apologised and paid Mrs P's daughter, son–in–law and grandson £3,429 in respect of their additional expenses. It also made a consolatory payment of £500 to Mrs P, her daughter and son–in–law in recognition of the distress and anxiety caused.