9. Mrs H complains about the delays in getting a decision on her EUSS application. She made the paper application on 28 January 2021 but did not get a decision until 25 October 2022. She says her application was straight forward and she was not asked to provide any further information, so it should not have taken so long for UKVI to reach a decision.
10. In its letter dated 11 February 2022, UKVI upheld Mrs H’s complaint. It says, ‘I am sorry that you were not contacted regarding the delay in considering your application. In light of your email it has been agreed to expedite your application. Your application is under active consideration and a caseworker will be in touch should they need anything further. Please be assured that a decision on your application will be made as soon as the case working team are in a position to do so’.
11. UKVI’s guidance on EUSS processing times says:
‘It usually takes around 5 working days for complete applications to be processed if no further information is required, but it can take up to a month.
Your application is likely to take longer than a month to process if:
• we need to request more information from you • you’re applying as a minor and your application is not linked to an adult • you submit a paper application – for example if your application is based on a derivative right to reside in the UK • you have a relevant criminal record • you’re a non-EEA or non-Swiss citizen and are applying based on a relationship you haven’t relied on in a previous application to the Home Office’.
12. Our Principles of Good Administration say, ‘Public bodies should handle and process information properly and appropriately in line with the law.’
13. We can see from UKVI’s records that it agreed to speed up the application on 10 February 2022 and this was because Mrs H needed to take her daughter abroad for medical treatment. UKVI’s records show it began its consideration of the application the same day. On 14 February UKVI’s records show that aliases were added to the application which related to Mrs H and her daughter’s full names from their birth certificates. The application was then referred to a senior caseworker for further consideration. On 12 March it is noted, ‘appears to be a mistake in biometric matching. This needs to be resolved before caseworker can proceed with decision’. It was then referred to a senior caseworker again.
14. The records show that UKVI had made a provisional decision on 14 March, but it was waiting for confirmation from a senior caseworker that the decision was correct. We can see within UKVI’s records that an update from the senior caseworker was requested many times between 16 March and 1 September 2022. At this time it is noted that there was an issue with the aliases on the application. The notes show this was not resolved until 17 October when it is noted, ‘biometric query now resolved. Incorrect details of another individual were manually entered incorrectly’. On 25 October UKVI reached the decision to grant Mrs H limited leave to remain. This did not differ to the provisional decision reached in March.
15. It is clear from the guidance that paper applications like Mrs H’s can take longer than a month to process and reach a decision. But, there is also no upper limit by which UKVI should have processed the application. After getting Mrs H’s complaint UKVI agreed to speed up the application and we can see that it began its consideration almost immediately. Though we appreciate that a long time passed between the application being made and UKVI agreeing to speed it up, we cannot say the delays Mrs H experienced were because of a failing by UKVI.
16. It is clear from the evidence that the delays between the application being chased up and UKVI reaching its decision were because of a failing. This is because incorrect information relating to a different application was manually added to Mrs H’s application and this then had to be investigated and removed. This is not in line with our principles. In our view this delay was avoidable and if the failing had not happened, UKVI would have reached its decision around 14 March 2022.
17. Mrs H told us that this has been a very stressful time for her as her daughter is disabled and was having treatment abroad but missed appointments because of the delays with the EUSS application. She told us the law in the country providing the treatment is strict and any violation of the duty of care towards a person under the age of 16 is a criminal offence. She says knowing this added to her stress. She also told us she has not been able to travel to where her elderly parents live to help evacuate them, which caused her to feel depressed and helpless.
18. The delays caused by UKVI’s mistake added up to about eight months. Given that by the time it had agreed to chase up her application she had already been waiting for over a year, it is understandable that the added delay caused her extra stress at an already difficult time. UKVI has not recognised this or taken any action to put this right. Because of this, we are partly upholding the complaint and have made recommendations to put this right for Mrs H.
19. We understand it was also stressful for her as she needed to take her daughter for her medical appointments, and she was not able to do this. On 2 February 2021 UKVI issued Mrs H with a ‘Certificate of Application’ letter. This letter sets out what rights an applicant can rely on while their application is being considered. The letter sent to Mrs H says:
‘If you were lawfully resident in the UK under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, or had a right of permanent residence under those Regulations, at the end of the transition period at 11pm on 31 December 2020, you can continue to rely on these residence rights until you are granted status under the scheme or your application is refused, including following any appeal against a decision to refuse this status.’
20. This means that while UKVI considered her EUSS application, Mrs H was still able to travel to and from the UK so she could have travelled for her daughter’s medical appointments. And, UKVI’s delay did not stop her from travelling to where her parents lived, instead travel was stopped because of the political situation.