UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI)

4. Mr A complains that UKVI caused a delay in his passport being returned to him following a withdrawn visa application.

5. He says that, whilst UKVI has accepted errors were made, it has decided it had been Mr A’s choice to travel to the Visa Application Centre to collect the passport in person. He disputes this and says UKVI’s inaction left him with no choice but to travel and resolve the matter.

6. He adds that UKVI’s actions delayed his ability to make a fresh application which, in turn, led to an avoidable delay in his ability to enter the UK and start work.

7. Mr A says he was financially impacted by the delay and would like UKVI to compensate him with £400 for the administrative costs and work he missed.

Complaint background

8. On 30 June 2023, Mr A, who was living in Ireland at the time, applied to UKVI for permission to enter and work in the UK. The application was made through a Visa Application Centre (VAC) based in Ireland. This is a privately run location, operating on UKVI’s behalf where applicants can submit their visa applications in person. As part of the application process, Mr A submitted his passport to the VAC as a supporting document.

9. Shortly afterwards, it became clear that Mr A had applied on the wrong basis (he had mistakenly applied to enter the country as a medical professional when this did not apply to him). Because of this, Mr A’s application was withdrawn, and he decided to apply again, this time on the correct basis. Unfortunately, he could not this without his original passport.

10. On 24 July 2023, UKVI contacted the VAC and asked it to release Mr A’s passport to him (it explained that the application had been declared void).

11. Mr A contacted the VAC to enquire about the return of his passport. However, on 3 August 2023, the VAC told Mr A it was still waiting for UKVI to authorise the passport’s release.

12. On 7 August 2023, Mr A contacted UKVI and said he could not move on with his second visa application until his passport had been returned to him. He said he had expected this would have happened by now.

13. When Mr A repeated this message the following day, UKVI responded and said the relevant department had been contacted and it was hoped he would be contacted about the return of his passport within ten to 15 working days.

14. On 9 August 2023, Mr A contacted UKVI again and formally complained to UKVI about the failure to return his passport. He said he had expected his passport to be returned within ten working days of 24 July but had still not received it. He said that, without the passport, he could not complete his new application which, in turn, would delay his ability to start work. He added that he was worried that a valuable document had been lost.

15. Mr A contacted UKVI again the following day and repeated his concerns. UKVI’s records show that, on the same day, it contacted the VAC and asked it to investigate what was happening with Mr A’s passport (it referred to its email of 24 July authorising release of the passport). UKVI also contacted Mr A to explain it had escalated the matter to the VAC and that the passport should be returned to him ‘in due course’.

16. On 11 August Mr A contacted UKVI again. He said the VAC had told him it had received nothing from UKVI in relation to releasing his passport. On 15 August, the VAC emailed Mr A and again said it had not received permission from UKVI to release the passport. It said once it had received this permission, it would contact Mr A to arrange delivery or collection of the passport. Mr A relayed this information to UKVI who said it had raised the issue with the VAC already and that he would need to wait for a response.

17. On 16 August 2023, Mr A contacted UKVI again and said he was still waiting for the passport to be released. He said, as far as he could see (and based on what the VAC had told him), UKVI had still not authorised the release and asked UKVI to do this as a matter of urgency. UKVI responded and repeated what it had said previously said (that the matter had been escalated to the VAC).

18. The following day, Mr A contacted UKVI again. He said the VAC had told him several times it had not received authorisation from UKVI to release the passport. He again explained the urgency and questioned the value of escalating the matter when no action had been taken previously. He contacted UKVI again the following day and repeated his concerns. UKVI responded and again told Mr A he would need to wait for the outcome of the VAC’s investigation.

19. On 21 August 2023, Mr A travelled to the VAC to raise the matter in person. He said when he arrived, the VAC told him it had still not received authorisation from UKVI to release the passport. However, given the serious nature of the situation, the VAC had agreed to release it to him anyway.

20. On 24 August 2023, UKVI responded to Mr A’s complaint of 9 August. It said that following his contact, it had again contacted the VAC to arrange the return of his passport (and had expected that Mr A would receive it by 22 August). It apologised for any inconvenience the delay in returning his passport has caused.

21. Mr A replied and indicated that he did not accept UKVI’s version of events. He said the VAC had told him repeatedly that it had not received authorisation from UKVI (despite UKVI’s claims to the contrary) and this is what had caused the delay in the passport being returned. UKVI responded and explained that it did not operate the VAC which is why it had escalated the matter. It said Mr A should be contacted ‘soon’ about this.

22. Following further contact between UKVI and Mr A, UKVI contacted the VAC again on 13 September. It again asked the VAC to investigate what had happened to Mr A’s passport and to confirm it had now been returned to him. Shortly afterward, UKVI contacted Mr A again and said the VAC had now confirmed that it had received the authorisation to release Mr A’s passport. It advised Mr A not to attend the VAC until he had received formal notification that the passport was ready for collection (it would appear from this that UKVI was unaware Mr A had collected the passport already).

23. Mr A responded and said, as far as he was concerned, the complaint was not yet resolved as it had not yet addressed the trouble he had gone to in order to retrieve his passport. UKVI replied and said it was still looking into the matter.

24. On 28 September 2023, UKVI contacted the VAC again and asked for an update on the return of Mr A’s passport. It said Mr A had still not received the passport (we now know this was incorrect) and asked the VAC to investigate. UKVI said this was the second time it had approached the VAC about this issue.

25. On 4 December 2023, UKVI again contacted the VAC to see what was happening. The VAC responded the following day and confirmed that Mr A had collected the passport on 21 August. UKVI followed this up and asked the VAC to confirm when it had received the authorisation from UKVI to release the passport. The VAC responded and confirmed it had received that authorisation on 24 July 2023. UKVI asked the VAC to confirm when it had advised Mr A his passport was ready for collection, but the VAC responded and said it held no record of this.

26. UKVI subsequently relayed this information to Mr A. It acknowledged the delay in returning the passport to him but highlighted the fact it had explored this with the VAC.

Administrative background

27. At the time of these events, UKVI’s ‘Visa and immigration’ website on GOV.UK provided guidance on the process for applying for the type of visa Mr A wanted (both the correct and incorrect application). It made clear that applications should be supported by a ‘valid passport’.

28. The guidance also made clear that, if an individual applied under the incorrect visa category, UKVI would reject the application as void and the individual must apply again.

29. UKVI’s guidance, ‘Get your visa, immigration or citizenship documents back’ (as it appeared on the Gov.UK website on 30 June 2023), says that applicants may be able to get their passport returned if they have sent them with their application, but this depends on whether they applied in the UK and the type of application. The guidance says applicants outside the UK should contact UKVI and ask for the passport to be returned. It adds that the applicant will be told when the passport is ready for collection and they then have three months in which to collect it (otherwise it will be returned to the issuing authority).

30. In the case of an application through a VAC, it is usually the VAC’s responsibility to contact the person to say the passport is ready for collection. It asks applicants not to attend their VAC until invited to do so.

33. Mr A is unhappy with the time it took for the VAC to return his passport. He believes UKVI caused this delay by not notifying the VAC to release his passport.

34. Despite both UKVI explaining this was not the cause of the delay, he continues to believe it did cause the delay because: • The VAC told him it had not heard from UKVI, and, • UKVI did not notify him it had contacted TLS.

35. Our office has taken an independent look at this case, and we support UKVI’s position. We have seen the email records between UKVI and the VAC which show UKVI authorised the release of Mr A’s passport (in an email dated 24 July 2023) and made repeated attempts to progress the matter on Mr A’s behalf. We would not have expected UKVI to have done more.

36. We have also seen evidence that, despite what the VAC may have told Mr A, it had received the original authorisation. Unfortunately, and for reasons unknown to us, it would appear the VAC failed to act upon it. That was no doubt frustrating for Mr A, but we cannot say this was UKVI’s fault.

37. We recognise this has left Mr A with unanswered questions about the VAC’s failure to act as quickly as he would have liked. Unfortunately, neither we nor UKVI can provide the answers he seeks.

38. For UKVI’s part, as it explained in an email to Mr A on 25 August 2023, it does not operate the VAC. For that reason, it could not take direct responsibility for the VAC’s actions. We can see that despite this, UKVI took a customer focussed approach to the situation. The evidence shows it contacted the VAC several times in a bid to uncover what had happened. This is in line with our Principles of Good Administration – Being Customer Focussed - under which we expect organisations to behave helpfully and respond flexibly to the circumstances of the case. Unfortunately, UKVI was unable to get to the bottom of this, not least because the VAC appeared not to have kept full records of its actions.

39. For different reasons, we are also unable to help with this matter. We should explain that, by law, we can only look at work done by, or on behalf of, organisations named in Schedule 2 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. In this case, the company responsible for operating the VAC is not named in that Schedule which means we have no lawful authority to investigate its activities.

40. We do not dispute Mr A’s contention that, if the VAC had returned his passport when requested to by UKVI, he would likely have been able to make his second (successful) visa application earlier than he did. He also may have been spared the expense of visiting the VAC to collect the passport in person (although this would always have been an option available to him). However, these are issues Mr A will need to explore with the VAC directly.

41. We understand, based on our conversations with Mr A, that he has not raised a complaint with the VAC about its handling of his case, as he was of the firm belief UKVI was responsible for the delay. It is up to him how he wishes to progress his complaint, but our position is that UKVI is ultimately not responsible for any failings that may have occurred or for putting right Mr A’s impact.

1. We are sorry to learn about Mr A’s frustrations and delays when he tried to get a work visa for the UK. We appreciate he was anxious about getting this to start his new job in the UK, and this would have caused him stress.

2. Having looked at Mr A’s complaint, we have decided to not consider it further. This is because we found UKVI has done enough to remedy the injustice it caused.

3. We appreciate why this complaint is important to Mr A and we will explain our decision in more detail below. We hope our explanation provides her with reassurance about how carefully we have considered her complaint before reaching our decision.