UK Visas and Immigration

4. Mr V complained that UKVI refused to refund his legal costs after his successful AR on 12 February 2021.

5. He explained had it not been for UKVI’s maladministration (when an organisation has done something wrong or a person has experienced poor service) he and his wife would not have had to pay legal costs. He said he used his credit card to pay and is now in financial difficulty due to the interest being charged.

6. Mr V wants UKVI to compensate him to the value of the solicitor fee (£1,800).

7. Part of UKVI’s role is to decide on applications for permission to visit and/or live in the UK (commonly known as visa applications). This includes applications for permission to live in the country as a spouse or partner of someone who is already entitled to live here.

8. In some circumstances, an applicant may appeal to a tribunal about a UKVI decision to refuse an application. By law, we cannot look at a decision which carries a right of appeal to a tribunal. Nor did we have the power to determine which decision should or should not carry a right of appeal. We can look only at whether, in a case where a decision should carry a right of appeal, that right has been explained to the applicant.

9. Where there is no right of appeal, it may be possible for a person to apply for an AR. The applicant can request that a decision which they believe is wrong be reviewed by a UKVI official who is not the original decision-maker, rather than by a tribunal or court.

10. Not all applications are eligible for an AR. If UKVI has refused an application, the decision letter will tell the applicant if they can apply for an AR. Also, if the applicant thinks UKVI has granted the wrong period or conditions of immigration leave they can apply for an AR.

11. On 28 April 2020, Mr V applied for permission to remain in the UK to continue his employment.

12. To be eligible for this visa an applicant needs to meet specific criteria depending on the type of work they are doing. In most cases, the applicant needs a certificate of sponsorship (this was a document from their employer to show that the applicant was employed in an eligible profession) and was receiving the appropriate salary.

13. There were some exceptions to the certificate of sponsorship conditions. One of these was if the occupation was in an industry with a shortage of skilled workers.

14. UKVI declined the application on 26 January 2021. It said Mr V’s profession was not one listed in the ‘Immigration Rules’ and was not eligible for the visa.

15. Mr V’s solicitor applied for an AR on his behalf. The solicitor said although Mr V’s occupation was not on the list of eligible professions in the ‘Immigration Rules’, it did meet the skills shortage criteria. UKVI considered this and reversed its decision on 12 February 2021.

16. On 4 May 2021 Mr V requested a payment to cover the legal fees of £1,800 from UKVI. He said he ‘tried to look up on the internet’ the basis for UKVI’s review but had been unable to find anything. He said he had been aware of a rule change (in December 2020) and thought that the relevant information had been removed. He said he spoke to a solicitor and was told the refusal had been wrong. He said he did not have the knowledge of immigration rules to organise an appeal himself and this is why he spoke to the solicitor.

17. On 17 June 2021 UKVI wrote to Mr V refusing his request but agreed its original decision had mistakes and offered £200 for its error. Mr V declined this offer.

20. UKVI accepted it made an error when first considering Mr V’s application because it said Mr V’s job did not meet the eligibility criteria set out in the Immigration Rules. Under our ‘Principles of Good Administration’ we expect organisations to take account of all relevant considerations when making decisions. UKVI’s failure to take proper account of Mr V’s employment status did not meet our expectation and, from what we have seen, indicates evidence of maladministration.

21. Our ‘Principles for Remedy’ say we expect organisations to put right any injustice caused by their errors. Mr V has said that UKVI’s error meant he had no option but to pay for legal support. We have looked carefully at this and at UKVI’s response to Mr V’s request for a refund.

22. UKVI say Mr V did not need to get a solicitor to put forward an appeal, so it cannot compensate his legal costs.

23. UKVI says for Mr V to have spoken to a solicitor, he must have known that a mistake had been made. As the refusal letter explained how to apply for an AR it felt the matter was not so complicated that a solicitor was needed.

24. UKVI did refund the AR fee and offered £200 for the incorrect refusal.

25. Mr V explained that he sought advice from two immigration advisers and his Member of Parliament (MP) who could not help him with the matter and advised him to use a solicitor due to the change in law.

26. We understand Mr V’s comment about his lack of detailed knowledge of the immigration rules. In our experience it is often a complicated subject and we understand his wish to get expert help. However, we need to look at whether he had no option but to seek that help and, if so, whether he had no option but to pay for it.

27. Our ‘Principles of Good Administration’ say we expect organisations to publish clear and understandable information about their service. UKVI publish guidance on its website on how to apply for a visa. This includes general information about the eligibility criteria and the ‘Immigration Rules’ themselves. We have looked carefully at what information UKVI made available to the public at that time.

28. In April 2020, UKVI’s website contained specific information about the eligibility criteria and provided a link to the list of occupations where there was a shortage of skilled workers. The job that Mr V does was included in this list.

29. In January 2021, UKVI’s website provided a link to a site where applicants could check for themselves whether their occupation was eligible.

30. We are satisfied that the information provided should have been enough to show Mr V that UKVI’s decision was possibly wrong and that he may be able to challenge it.

31. We also note that UKVI’s website contained details of how applicants could contact it if they had questions about immigration. Although UKVI made clear that its contact centre staff could not provide advice about personal circumstances (so they could not have advised Mr V whether a request for review would likely be successful), it could have provided more general information about the eligibility criteria for the visa he had applied for.

32. We are also aware of other free sources of help on immigration matters, such as the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB), that Mr V could have turned to before, and instead of, paying for the services of a solicitor. According to the CAB’s website people needing help with an immigration problem can contact it for ‘free and confidential’ advice.

33. All of this suggests there is more Mr V could have done for himself before deciding to pay for a solicitor.

34. We see that Mr V used the solicitor to submit the AR on his behalf. However, the process of doing so is straightforward (it involves completing an online form) and we found Mr V should not have needed expert help to do this.

35. While we appreciate the circumstances surrounding Mr V’s decision to talk to a solicitor, we think at this stage it was not necessary.

36. We appreciate Mr V’s first application was incorrectly rejected but are satisfied that by refunding the money he paid for the AR, and offering a payment of £200, UKVI has done enough to put matters right for him.

37. We realise this is unlikely to be the outcome Mr V was looking for when he approached us. We hope we have clearly explained the reasons for our decision and we thank Mr V for bringing his concerns to our attention.

1. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has carefully considered Mr V’s complaint about UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI). We have seen no sign that anything serious went wrong.

2. We have found no evidence that UKVI should refund Mr V for legal costs he had before the administrative review (AR is a process of reviewing certain immigration decisions). We are satisfied Mr V could have reasonably asked for an AR without paying a solicitor.

3. We understand this is unlikely to be the outcome Mr V was looking for when he brought his concerns to us. We hope the reasons for our decision explain the careful consideration we have given to this matter.