Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner

6. Ms A complains OISC did not investigate her concerns about the way IAS conducted the judicial review (JR) application of her husband’s (Mr A’s) deportation in 2021, as part of its investigation into IAS’ service to Mr A. She also complains OISC’s final determination acknowledged failings, but it did not assign any accountability or liability to IAS.

7. Ms A says as a result of OISC failing to investigate IAS’ handling of her husband’s judicial review application, she was caused distress, disappointment and anger that an important part of her complaint had not been considered and she had not been listened to.

8. Ms A also complains that although OISC recommended IAS pay financial compensation to her and her husband as a result of failings identified about its service, it did not specify an amount or how this should be actioned.

9. Ms A said as a result of OISC’s failure to specify the terms of compensation, she and her husband have been financially disadvantaged. She said she was not able to financially support her husband who has ended up homeless and begging in Jamaica without sufficient food, clothes or toiletries.

10. Ms A said the outcome she would like is for the OISC final determination of her complaint about IAS to be reviewed. She said she would also like OISC to organise a meeting with her and IAS to determine how much financial compensation should be paid and the process for this to happen. Ms A said she would like OISC to ‘financially support’ her to allow her to visit her husband in Jamaica.

11. Ms A’s husband, Mr A, is a citizen of Jamaica. He arrived in the UK as a minor to join his mother. Mr A has a history of mental health disorders, including paranoid schizophrenia. In September 1996, he was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK. Mr A was convicted of a crime in May 2018 and was sentenced to 37 months in prison. Because of this, he was subsequently deported to Jamaica in November 2021.

12. Ms A complained to IAS on 11 November 2021 about the poor service and alleged misconduct she and her husband received from their caseworker (the Caseworker) who had been assigned to assist with Mr A’s appeal against deportation. However, she did not receive a response until she complained to OISC in May 2022. IAS responded to OISC about Ms A’s complaint on 18 July 2022.

Issue 1

15. Ms A complains OISC did not investigate her concerns about the way IAS conducted the judicial review application of her husband’s deportation in 2021, as part of its investigation into IAS’ service to Mr A. She also complains OISC’s final determination of her complaint acknowledged failings, but it did not assign any accountability or liability to IAS.

16. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.

17. In March 2022, we published the UK Central Government Complaint Standards (the Complaint Standards). These set out the expectations UK Government departments should meet when handling complaints and using learning to improve public services.

18. One of the expectations is UK Government departments should give fair and accountable responses that amongst other things should: • set out what happened and whether mistakes were made • clearly set out how the organisation is accountable

19. Ms A said OISC’s final determination did not investigate who had submitted an unsigned JR application to the Courts. She said she had initially completed an application for JR. However, she was informed that she was not authorised to submit it and it had to be done by a lawyer or barrister.

20. Ms A said she passed the signed JR application to the Caseworker to complete who later told her she could not submit the application having previously agreed to do so. Ms A said she later discovered another (unsigned) JR application in a bundle of court papers, but she does not know who completed it. She said OISC should have looked at this as part of its investigation as it is further evidence of how her husband was failed by IAS.

21. We have seen evidence in the final determination which addresses the Caseworker’s role in the JR application. While OISC do not comment on the second JR application, it strongly criticises the Caseworker for ‘acting above her authorisation’ in relation to advising Ms A and Mr A about the JR application. OISC also criticised the Caseworker for not telling Ms A and Mr A that she was not authorised to instruct a barrister and they should instead seek assistance from an authorised OISC immigration adviser. OISC said this was a breach of Code 31 of its code of conduct.

22. We have found no indications of maladministration here. Even if OISC had investigated the second JR application, we do not see how it would have altered its conclusions about the Caseworker’s competence and practice. It is clear OISC set out what happened in relation to the JR and concluded mistakes were made. OISC acted in line with the Complaint Standards.

Issue 2

23. Ms A complains that although OISC recommended IAS pay financial compensation to her and her husband as a result of failings identified about its service, it did not specify an amount or how this should be actioned.

24. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen.

25. One of the expectations of the Complaint Standards is UK Government departments should give fair and accountable responses that amongst other things should:

• give colleagues the confidence and freedom to offer fair remedies to put things right.

26. We have seen evidence that although OISC’s final determination of Ms A’s complaint recommended apologies, a refund of fees (paid to IAS by Ms A) and financial compensation, it did not provide any guidance to IAS about how much an appropriate amount of compensation should be. In the event, IAS only provided Ms A with a refund of fees. Documentation shows that OISC tried to arrange a meeting with Ms A and IAS to discuss the implementation of the remaining recommendations. However, it was unsuccessful and this led to Ms A complaining to us.

27. When we met IAS and OISC, IAS said it was unsure about how much compensation to offer. It might have been helpful if OISC had persisted with trying to arrange a meeting with IAS so the issue of compensation could have been clarified. There are indications of maladministration here as it appears IAS did not have the confidence to know what was a fair and appropriate amount of compensation to offer. It seems OISC did not act in line with the Complaint Standards by giving IAS the guidance and confidence it needed to make a fair offer of compensation to Ms A.

28. We spoke to Ms A about this aspect of her complaint and asked whether meeting with OISC and IAS would resolve her remaining concerns about financial compensation. She confirmed it would. Consequently, we asked OISC to liaise with IAS so both organisations could meet with Ms A to discuss the issue of compensation and how this will be actioned. A meeting has been arranged for 19 December 2024. We consider OISC is now acting in line with the Complaint Standards. This is because OISC will potentially be able to give guidance and confidence to IAS to offer a fair amount of compensation to Ms A to put things right.

1. We have carefully considered Ms A’s complaint about the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC).

2. We have seen no indication that anything went seriously wrong in the way OISC handled Ms A’s complaint about the Immigration Advisory Service (IAS).

3. But we have seen that OISC made recommendations to IAS as a result of its investigation of Ms A’s complaint, some of which have not yet been actioned. OISC and IAS have agreed to meet Ms A to resolve her concerns about the remaining recommendations that have not yet been implemented. Given this, we have decided to take no further action.

4. We know Ms A has experienced significant distress as a result of the events that led her to complain to us and we hope this early resolution will give her the positive outcome she has been pursuing.

5. Our statement below will give more detail on how we reached our decision.