Foreword
Jump to
I am laying this report before Parliament under section 10(4) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. The report contains summaries of 11 cases which are illustrative of the large numbers and wide range of complaints referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman by Members of Parliament about the UK Border Agency (the Agency). They involve applications for asylum, as well as the Agency’s core immigration and nationality work, and applications for residence cards, which confirm rights of residence under European law.
By way of introduction to the summaries of complaints we have investigated, we have identified some issues and themes arising from our investigations which I hope will be of wider interest and will help to drive service improvements and inform public policy.
The Agency and their predecessors (the Border and Immigration Agency, UKvisas and the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office) have consistently generated a large number of complaints to the Ombudsman – as the figures below demonstrate.
In 2007-08
- We received 316 complaints.
- We accepted 47 for investigation.
- We reported on 55 investigations, of which
84% were upheld in full or in part.
In 2008-09
- We received 517 complaints.
- We accepted 55 for investigation.
- We reported on 23 investigations, of which 96%
were upheld in full or in part.
In the first 9 months of 2009-10
- We received 478 complaints.
- We accepted 11 for investigation.
- We reported on 33 investigations, of which 97%
were upheld in full or in part.
Over the past three years we have had an open and constructive dialogue with the Agency, at both senior and operational levels, about the need for improvements in their service to users and in their complaint handling performance. We have seen progress – not least in the proportion of complaints that we are able to resolve by way of informal intervention rather than a full investigation – but the Agency still have a long way to go on their journey to being able to demonstrate to us in our casework that they are meeting the Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Administration, Principles of Good Complaint Handling and Principles for Remedy.
I should stress that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to inspect the Agency’s functions or to report on their efficiency and effectiveness. That is the statutory remit of John Vine, the Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency. I note with interest that the Chief Inspector will publish a report later this year following his own thematic inspection of the Agency’s complaint handling and I hope that my report will both inform and complement that important aspect of the Chief Inspector’s work.
As I say in the introduction to the report which follows, most of the complaints we receive are from people in this country who are facing long delays awaiting a decision on their application to the Agency. Delays by the Agency in deciding such applications mean that people who should be given permission to stay are often left unable to support themselves and uncertain as to their future; and those who should be removed remain here, with their chances of eventually being allowed to stay increasing because of the Agency’s delay. As the cases in this report show, the Agency’s failure to resolve applications within reasonable timescales can have serious implications for the individuals involved, for society in general, and for the public purse.
The Agency’s biggest problem is the huge backlog of old asylum applications which has built up over a number of years, leaving hundreds of thousands of applicants waiting for years for a final decision on their application. It is only in recent years that the Agency have put in place a five-year plan, backed by sufficient resources, to reduce and eliminate this backlog. They have also introduced a new system for assessing asylum applications which, in their words, is ‘faster and fairer’. But many of the complaints we have seen have demonstrated that, at the same time as working to reduce the backlog of old asylum claims, the Agency have allowed large backlogs to build up in other key areas of their work, often as a result of sudden changes in priorities and switching of resources.
The Agency have made significant progress in recent years towards clearing their backlogs, although progress has been slow because of the scale of the problem. They need to make sustained and consistent progress towards their commitment to meeting their service standards, clearing existing backlogs and avoiding them in future – because the implications of them not doing so are serious and far-reaching, both for the individuals caught up in the system and for society as a whole.
Given the scale of the problems, there can be no short-term fix, and the resolution will need to be founded on clear and consistent priorities, supported by good forward planning and adequate resources. I hope that the lessons to be learnt from this report will also be of benefit to the Agency as they continue on their journey to improved customer service and complaint handling.
Ann Abraham
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
February 2010
