Ms T's application on the grounds of domestic violence
Jump to
Background to the complaint
In February 2007 Ms T, a United States national, applied for indefinite leave to remain (as a victim of domestic violence) on the basis of her marriage. Ms T did not include the relevant fee (then £335) with her application, and so the UK Border Agency (the Agency) returned the application to her, on 23 February, saying that it could not be considered without the fee. If she wanted her application considered, she was to return it, together with the correct payment, within 28 days. If she did not, her application would be treated as withdrawn.
Ms T returned the application form with payment details to the Agency on 27 February 2007, where they were received on 2 March. An attempt was made to process the payment but the credit card details provided were declined. On 30 March the papers were returned to Ms T and she was advised that her application had been considered withdrawn as she had not paid the fee. The documents returned to Ms T included information about the ‘Life in the UK test’, which she believed she would need to sit to obtain indefinite leave to remain. She began to prepare for the examination.
In April 2007 Ms T complained to the Agency about the handling of her leave application. She said she had repeatedly checked with her bank to see if the payment had gone through, and when she contacted the Agency they told her not to worry. She said that at no time had the Agency told her there was a problem with the payment. The Agency replied that they had followed the correct procedure in treating her application as withdrawn because she had not made the payment within 28 days. They told Ms T that if she wanted to submit a new application, she would have to pay the new fee of £750 (effective from 2 April 2007). Ms T and the Agency continued to exchange correspondence through the summer; her main grievances being that no one had told her that her credit card details had been declined, and when the Agency had contacted her, it was too late to submit new payment details. She had not been given the chance to supply the Agency with new card details, thereby avoiding the increased fee.
In April 2008 Ms T submitted an application for indefinite leave to remain under the domestic violence provisions, together with the fee of £750. She was granted indefinite leave to remain in May.
What our investigation found
The Agency’s handling of Ms T’s application payment was poor: by the time they told her the payment had been declined, the 28-day window in which to make alternative payment arrangements had expired, resulting in her having to pay the increased fee. It did not help that the Agency were not able to communicate the payment problems to Ms T when she spoke to them. Although the Agency said that the onus is on the applicant to check with his or her bank to ensure the payment goes through, Ms T has said that she contacted the Agency immediately and on several occasions thereafter. We could not see what more she could have done to ensure her fee was processed, and it was unreasonable of the Agency to maintain the stance that they had followed their procedures.
Part of Ms T’s complaint to the Ombudsman was that the Agency had not properly considered making reasonable adjustments for her (she is dyslexic), when she sits the Life in the UK test. It transpired that a person applying for indefinite leave to remain under the provisions of the domestic violence rules is not required to take the test, even after a change in the rules in April 2007. Ms T did not, therefore, have to take the test.
In summary, the Agency’s poor handling of Ms T’s application, together with their failure to promptly acknowledge their errors and take steps to rectify the situation, amounted to maladministration, and showed a clear lack of ‘customer focus’. As Ms T will not have to take the Life in the UK test, we made no finding about whether the Agency had considered making reasonable adjustments to enable her to do so.
The injustice to Ms T
Ms T suffered anxiety, frustration and inconvenience at not being told promptly by the Agency that there was a problem with her payment, and further frustration at having to complain at length to the Agency, who did not rectify the situation for almost 18 months.
How we resolved the complaint
We partly upheld Ms T’s complaint. The Agency made her a payment of £415, being the difference between the fees for her application, and offered her their unreserved apologies for the problems she encountered in her dealings with them. They also made her a consolatory payment of £200 in recognition of the inconvenience and distress that she suffered as a result. We considered that to be a suitable remedy, but recommended that the Agency provide Ms T with a written apology from a senior officer.
