Mr M's request for the return of his passport and other documents
Jump to
Background to the complaint
Mr M, a Lithuanian national, applied for asylum on his arrival in the UK in December 2000. By his account, he handed the UK Border Agency (the Agency) his passport and birth certificate at his initial interview. Their notes of that interview indicated that Mr M gave them his passport, but made no mention of his birth certificate. Because of ill health Mr M was unable to continue the interview and the Agency granted him temporary admission to the UK. He attended the Agency again in June 2001, at which time they gave him a standard acknowledgement letter. (This letter, which is issued when the Agency are unable to give an asylum applicant an Application Registration Card, has tick boxes to show which documents the Agency have received from the applicant. There are specific boxes for passports and birth certificates.) The relevant box was ticked to indicate that the Agency had received a passport from Mr M.
In June 2002 Mr M made a new asylum application. The Agency interviewed him in November, granted him further temporary admission for six months, and gave him another standard acknowledgement letter. The letter did not indicate that the Agency had received his birth certificate. In January 2003 the Agency issued Mr M with an Application Registration Card to replace his standard acknowledgement letter. In July 2004 the Agency refused Mr M’s asylum application. In August they completed a form which stated that any original documents they held would be enclosed with their covering decision letter when it was despatched to the failed applicant. A box on the form was ticked which noted that ‘any original documents with the exception of false or fraudulent passports and travel documents’ had been dispatched to Mr M’s representatives. The Agency did not return Mr M’s passport.
There is no evidence of any correspondence between Mr M, his representatives and the Agency about Mr M’s passport until July 2007, when the representatives wrote to ask the Agency to return it to Mr M, along with any other original documents. The Agency logged this letter as a complaint. Mr M’s representatives chased the Agency in late August for an update on the complaint and pressed for the return of his passport. They explained that Mr M’s lack of proof of his European Union nationality was causing him difficulties. The representatives wrote to the Agency in November, telling them that they had complained to the Ombudsman, and that Mr M was: ‘in an extremely difficult position because without a passport and his birth certificate, he is unable to find work and so is street homeless’. They also asked for compensation.
The Agency returned Mr M’s passport (which had expired the previous month) in February 2008 and apologised for the delay in responding to his compensation request. The representatives wrote back to the Agency, requesting the return of Mr M’s birth certificate. The Agency replied in August, saying that they could find no reference in their records to Mr M having given them his birth certificate. They enclosed a medical certificate which they had found. In terms of Mr M’s compensation claim, the Agency suggested that the representatives give details of their request to the Customer Service Unit.
Having considered Mr M’s compensation request in December 2008, the Agency told his representatives that they could not consider compensation in respect of his birth certificate because they had no record of having received it. They did acknowledge, though, that they should have returned Mr M’s passport in August 2004 when they refused his asylum application. They had first received a request to return it in July 2007, but had not done so until February 2008. The Agency explained that after August 2004 Mr M had been entitled to register under the ‘workers registration scheme’, and apologised that they had not made that clearer to him at the time. To make amends the Agency offered Mr M a consolatory payment of £150 for the delay in returning his passport and for not making his position in the UK clearer. They also accepted that they had denied Mr M the chance to seek work and offered £200 in recognition of that. They apologised for the time taken to consider his compensation claim and offered a further payment of £50.
What our investigation found
In the language of the Ombudsman’s Principles, the Agency did not ‘get it right’ in the following ways: they failed to return Mr M’s passport in August 2004 when he was refused asylum, and when asked to do so in July 2007. The Agency did not take the opportunity to ‘put things right’ as they: did not substantively respond to Mr M’s representatives’ follow‑up letters; took until February 2008 to return Mr M’s passport and did not return his remaining documents until August 2008; and they took over a year to deal with Mr M’s request for compensation. These service failures were so serious as to amount to maladministration. We found insufficient evidence, however, that Mr M had given his birth certificate to the Agency.
The injustice to Mr M
We were satisfied that the Agency’s failure to return Mr M’s passport and their delay in responding to his complaint were likely to have caused him considerable worry, distress and inconvenience, particularly given his difficult personal circumstances (he has learning difficulties, long‑term health problems, and language and literacy needs). Although Mr M had an Application Registration Card even after his asylum application had ended, this may have proved insufficient as a means of identification, in particular to prospective employers, because it would have shown that he was not allowed to work. Mr M was denied the opportunity to seek work while the Agency held his passport. Whilst we could not be certain that Mr M would have gained, or kept, employment since August 2004, the fact that he was denied the opportunity to try and support himself was a considerable injustice.
How we resolved the complaint
We partly upheld Mr M’s complaint. Although the Agency apologised to him and paid him £400 in total, that did not fully remedy the injustice to him in our view. At our recommendation the Agency paid Mr M another £200 (to remedy the significant impact that the loss of opportunity to seek work had upon him, and the additional inconvenience of having to seek a new passport after his old one had expired); and a further £30 to cover the costs he incurred in pursuing his complaint.
