Application for Administrative Review
13. Mr B made an application via his solicitor (the solicitor) for an Administrative Review of UKVI’s decision to deny his application under the EU Settlement Scheme on 22 February 2021.
14. The EU settlement scheme was created to enable EU, other EEA and Swiss citizens and their family members, resident in the UK by 31 December 2020, to enable them to continue living in the UK after it left the EU.
UKVI initial response to Mr B’s complaint
15. Mr B’s solicitor complained on 11 March 2022. UKVI provided its response on 30 March 2022.
16. It noted that Mr B’s legal representative at the time of the application was informed the review would take 28 days, but Mr B had said he had not yet received a decision. It noted Mr B’s assertion that the case was straightforward, and he had provided details of his current circumstances.
17. It acknowledged Mr B’s concerns regarding the effect the delay was having on Mr B’s employment and his request for UKVI to resolve his application.
18. UKVI said it had raised the matter with the appropriate casework team and while it had noted Mr B’s concerns, it was unable to uphold his complaint.
19. UKVI explained that AR cases had seen a significant increase across immigration routes since January 2021.
20. It explained resources are being increased in order to address delays and it was aiming to work through applications as quickly as possible. It said applications will be reviewed according to the relevant rules at the time of the application and the final decision will not be affected by the delay.
21. It assured Mr B the casework team was aware of his case and will aim to conclude his application as soon as it was possible to do so. At this time, UKVI said it was unable to provide a definitive indication as to when this will be. It said Mr B would be contacted if further information is required.
UKVI final response
22. UKVI responded on 25 April 2022.
23. UKVI apologised for the delay in responding to Mr B’s complaint, explaining it aimed to reply to 95% of correspondence in 20 working days. We can see that Mr B had complained initially on 30 March 2022, so this was outside it’s aimed for response time.
24. It acknowledged Mr B’s complaint about the time taken to make a decision on the AR submitted in February 2021, noting Mr B had said the delay was stopping him being able to travel abroad as part of his studies and work commitments.
25. It did not uphold his complaint, explaining that the complaints process was not intended to provide a remedy for customers dissatisfied with an immigration decision and that making a complaint does not mean that an application will be dealt with more quickly.
26. It explained that AR decisions are being dealt with as swiftly as possible during a time of unprecedented number of applications being received.
27. It said it had reviewed Mr B’s circumstances but unfortunately they were not considered to be exceptional to expedite the AR. It apologised for the delay, but said it was unable to provide a timescale for when the AR will be concluded. It said it would notify Mr B when a decision was made.
UKVI Administrative Review Response
28. UKVI sent its Administrative Review decision to Mr B on 23 August 2022. UKVI upheld its original decision. It provided a detailed explanation for its rationale, and signposted Mr B to how he could appeal the initial decision to turn down his EU settlement application, through the First Tier Tribunal under the Immigration Rules 2020.
Our view regarding Mr B’s Administrative Review Application
29. When carrying out an investigation we first look to see if there is anything went wrong, or the organisation made errors. In this case we have looked at how UKVI handled Mr B’s AR request to see if UKVI made errors with his application that resulted in delays, or there are indications that the responses that UKVI gave when he complained are not in line with what was happening with his application.
30. At the time of Mr B’s AR application, we can see UKVI guidance said it generally takes 28 days to make a decision on the application. It is important to note that we do not consider this was a mandatory target or a firm commitment that this time frame would be achieved for every specific application, however on the basis of this guidance we understand why it came as a surprise it took so much longer.
31. We would not usually consider a delay which was caused as a result of an increased or unprecedented demand on a service, or an oversubscribed public service to be maladministration. However, if we identified that something went wrong, there was an unnecessary delay, or the organisation made an error that caused a delay we could deem this to be a failing. If we identified a failing amounting to maladministration, we could then go on to consider what impact occurred as a result.
32. We have contacted UKVI about Mr B’s complaint.
33. We have asked about the length of time it took to complete Mr B’s review. UKVI has said there was a sharp rise in applications that caused the waiting times for Administrative Reviews to rise sharply, and we can see this was communicated to Mr B in UKVI’s responses.
34. From the Home Office’s Annual Report 2021/2022 we can see that as of the 30 December 2021 there had been 6.4 million applications. The scheme closed on 31 June 2021, however we can see that, even though the scheme was closed a further 1.7 million applications were made. This fell during the time period of Mr B’s application. However, there is no information provided on applications made for Administrative Reviews.
35. We asked for UKVI to provide more specific information on this, as there is no published data available.
36. UKVI has provided us with information which demonstrates a significant increase in demand on its service regarding Administrative Reviews, at the time of Mr B’s application in February 2021. It has also explained how demand increased as the EU Settlement scheme drew to a close in June 2021. We consider this could have caused a significant backlog.
37. We are satisfied the information UKVI has shared with us, supports the information it shared with Mr B during the complaints correspondence regarding the reason for the delay was related to unprecedented demand, rather than a result of maladministration.
38. UKVI also explained to us it continued to increase resources to deal with demand, and Mr B’s application was dealt with in turn alongside all other applications applying at the same time.
39. On the basis of what UKVI has told us and Mr B, it appears that Mr B’s AR took the time it did to be completed due to demand, rather than as a result of maladministration or errors.
40. However, in addition to the information provided by UKVI we also requested that UKVI send us a copy of the CID records that relate to Mr B’s application. CID records log all progress and communication regarding an Administrative Review application. This was to see if there was any indication that something had went wrong with his application, which had caused or contributed the delay, rather than it being purely down to volume of applications.
41. We can see that UKVI uploaded Mr B’s application on 24 February 2021, so there was no delay in it logging his request, and the application was assessed and deemed to be valid on 25 February.
42. We can see UKVI actively chased up the evidence which the solicitor had noted they would be supplying to show the initial EU settlement scheme decision is wrong.
43. We can see on the 2 March 2021, UKVI confirmed the documents had been linked to Mr B’s application for consideration and said if UKVI required further information the caseworker would be in touch.
44. There appears to have been an issue with the documents sent over being too large which was raised as an issues on 2 March 2021, however we can see on 11 March 2021 UKVI emailed the solicitor requesting this was sent in smaller batches.
45. Mr B has raised general concerns about UKVI experiencing system errors which do not allow applicants to upload additional information, so it is of note the email was blocked, not due to a system error, but it was due to the Home Office only allowing a maximum file size of 25MB.
46. On 17 March, four emails were received by UKVI from the solicitor and successfully linked to Mr B’s application.
47. On 20 March 2021 we can see the solicitor requested an update on the application. UKVI responded on 24 March 2021 apologising for the delay, explaining that at times of high levels of applications, there can be delays. It said Mr B’s application would be considered in due course and he would be notified accordingly.
48. The solicitor wrote again on 27 April 2021 requesting an update.
49. UKVI responded on 6 May 2021 apologising again for the delay, explaining it had seen a significant increase in applications across immigrations routes since early January 2021.
50. It explained that at times of high levels of applications, Administrative Reviews may need to be prioritised according to the complexity of individual circumstances.
51. It reiterated resources are being increased in order to address delays and it aimed to work through applications as quickly as possible. It explained applications will be reviewed according to the relevant rules at the time of the application, and the final decision would not be affected by the delay.
52. It apologised it could not give any more information than had already been provided and said it would be in touch when Mr B’s application had been concluded.
53. A further email was sent by the solicitor with Mr B’s marriage certificate enclosed on 5 May 2021, and we can see UKVI linked this to Mr B’s application on 16 May 2021.
54. On the 22 May 2021 the solicitor wrote again raising concerns about progress and potential impact on Mr Bs employment.
55. On 15 February 22 we can see the solicitor wrote again to UKVI requesting an update, as it had been nearly one year since the submission of the application for an AR, and explaining the impact this was having on Mr B.
56. From the case notes it appears Mr B also called UKVI on 16 February 2022, raising his concerns.
57. Mr B’s MP also contacted UKVI on 8 July 2022.
58. Mr B’s solicitor’s wrote to UKVI again on 11 July, requesting an urgent update.
59. Mr B’s application was reviewed on 12 July 2022.
60. We can see his application was reviewed, however UKVI made the decision to maintain the original decision to refuse the applicant Pre-settled Status or maintain Pre-settled Status as the application was correctly considered based on the original evidence submitted by the applicant.
61. The notes say the applicant was refused on the basis he applied as a durable partner but does not hold a relevant document.
62. It also noted that Mr B had not met the definition of a spouse or family member under the EU Settlement scheme, as the marriage certificate specified the applicant was married after the specified date.
63. We can see the case underwent further checks and the decision was approved, and the decision was issued on 23 August 2022.
64. When assessing application or case notes, we look for a number of signs that may indicate an organisation may have made errors in how it handled it. These include, but are not limited to indications that the organisation:
• failed to upload an application onto the system in a reasonable time frame from when it was received • did not respond to queries • failed to upload additional information provided which resulted in delays • failed to request additional or required information • failed to contact applicant in line with any service level agreements in place • any indications that applications had to be expedited due to errors or referred to senior/other departments as a result of errors
65. Having looked at Mr B’s application in detail, we can see no indication anything went wrong. The application was uploaded at the time of receipt, UKVI prompted the solicitor for the additional information. While there were some issues initially with the additional information sent over, we can see this was as a result of the size of the files, rather than a system’s error.
66. We can see that UKVI responded to queries raised by the solicitor at the times they chased the application.
67. While it was unable to say when the application would be completed which was understandably extremely frustrating for Mr B given the circumstances, this was in line with the UKVI guidance at the time, regarding Administrative Reviews for the EU settlement time.
68. This guidance had been updated from its previous guidance of a 28-day turnaround at the time Mr B made his application, and now explained the UKVI was experiencing unprecedented levels of applications which was causing a delay to its usual service, and in line with the information UKVI has shared with us.
69. We have so no indication that the UKVI made errors when it processed Mr B’s application, and its responses to his concerns were in line with its guidance at the time. We consider that the time taken to give Mr B his decision was a result of extremely high demand on the UKVI service, as a whole in terms of the volume of applicants EU Settlement scheme and subsequent increases in applications for Administrative Reviews.
70. We understand Mr B suffered a great deal of anxiety, frustration and distress because of the length of time it took to receive the outcome of his application for an Administrative review of UKVI’s initial decision. We hope our statement explains why we cannot take further action with his complaint.