Mr C's application for asylum
Jump to
Background to the complaint
Mr C, a Somali national, arrived in the UK in December 1997 and applied for asylum the following year. The UK Border Agency (the Agency) considered his application in May 2000 and decided to grant him indefinite leave to remain in the UK as a refugee. In July the Agency sent Mr C’s status document to his solicitors, but it was returned to the Agency marked ‘addressee gone away’. In line with their guidance, the Agency placed the returned papers on file to await contact from Mr C or his representatives.
Mr C instructed new solicitors to act on his behalf, and between March 2001 and May 2002 they wrote to the Agency three times about Mr C’s application. The Agency did not reply to any of those letters. However, in July 2002 they did remove Mr C’s file from their storage facility, intending to deal with it, but they took no further action and returned the file to storage. Some time later Mr C again instructed new representatives. In October 2004 they wrote to the Agency, providing an updated address for Mr C, and asking the Agency to deal with his case urgently. The Agency did not respond. In November the Agency retrieved Mr C’s file from storage once again and placed it in the work in progress store, where it remained for some considerable time before being returned to storage.
In November 2006 Mr C’s representatives wrote to the Agency saying that they were concerned that the Agency still had not processed Mr C’s asylum claim. Mr C’s representatives also wrote separately providing Mr C’s new address. The Agency retrieved Mr C’s file from their storage facility once more and placed it in the work in progress store, where it remained untouched. In December 2007 Mr C’s representatives wrote to the Agency saying that Mr C had not been issued with an Application Registration Card, which was causing him problems, and also provided his new address. The Agency replied thanking the representatives for telling them about Mr C’s new address, and confirming they had updated his records. The Agency took no further action.
In February 2008 Mr C’s Member of Parliament contacted the Agency on his behalf. In reply, the Agency explained that Mr C had been granted indefinite leave to remain as a refugee in May 2000, and that his status documents had been sent to his (first) representatives, but had been returned undelivered and had remained on Mr C’s file since then. The Agency asked where the status documents should be sent. The Agency wrote to Mr C to confirm what they had told the Member, apologised for the time they had taken to resolve his application, and enclosed the status document they had prepared in 2000.
What our investigation found
The Agency decided to grant Mr C indefinite leave to remain in May 2000 but he did not receive his status documents until February 2008. Initially the Agency were not at fault: if Mr C’s first representatives had told the Agency of their new address, Mr C’s status documents would have reached him in July 2000. The Agency acted appropriately by serving Mr C’s decision on file, following receipt of his returned status document. However, when Mr C re-established contact with the Agency through new representatives their handling of his case deteriorated markedly.
On receipt of Mr C’s new representatives’ first letter of March 2001, the Agency should have reconsidered their original decision to grant him indefinite leave to remain as an outstanding initial application, and issued a new decision and the appropriate documentation. That did not happen. Nor did it happen following the five subsequent occasions between March 2002 and December 2007 when Mr C’s representatives contacted the Agency about his outstanding asylum application. It was only when Mr C approached his Member that any real progress was made. But, in acting swiftly to resolve matters, the Agency compounded their earlier mistakes by mishandling the service of Mr C’s status documents. Rather than reconsidering the application and serving a fresh decision in line with the published policy, the Agency despatched the original status documents prepared some eight years previously. That should not have happened.
The injustice to Mr C
The lengthy and unnecessary delay in receiving his status papers resulted in uncertainty and stress for Mr C, and caused more practical difficulties such as being unable to open a bank account. Mr C also said that the Agency’s delay in dealing with his application denied him access to local authority housing. While we had some sympathy with that position, we were unable to conclude that the Agency’s delay denied him access to public housing.
How we resolved the complaint
We upheld Mr C’s complaint. Rather than reconsider Mr C’s case afresh the Agency confirmed that their original decision would stand, because their actions had understandably raised his expectations. They also acknowledged their poor handling of Mr C’s case, offered him their apologies, and made him a consolatory payment of £300.
Back to top
