Mr F's complaint about the UK Border Agency
Jump to
Not only did the UK Border Agency delay sending Mr F a form, they also lost his file and four sets of his photographs. Their mistakes meant that for fifteen months Mr F did not receive the income support to which he was entitled – money that he needed for food and basic necessities.
Background
In December 2000 Mr F claimed asylum in the UK, which was refused. His appeal was allowed in March 2003, but the UK Border Agency (the Agency) successfully appealed against that decision in October. While awaiting the decision on his asylum claim, Mr F claimed National Asylum Support Service (NASS) support until December, when he became destitute. His solicitors told us that between January 2004 and November 2005, Mr F found free accommodation with various people. In November 2005 Mr F was awarded what is known as ‘section 4 support’. (A person whose asylum claim has been rejected may be able to receive short‑term support while waiting to return to his or her country of origin.)
Mr F made further submissions to the Agency about his asylum claim. On 27 March 2007 he was granted refugee status and five years’ leave to remain in the UK. The Agency sent Mr F notification of this decision on 18 May. On 31 May the solicitors wrote to ask the Agency to issue Mr F with a NASS 35 form. (The form certifies how much NASS support a person has received since claiming asylum. That enables Jobcentre Plus to backdate income support payments to the date the asylum claim was submitted, provided income support was claimed within twenty eight days of the applicant receiving notification of his or her status as a refugee.) The solicitors repeated their request for the form to be issued, on 15 June, enclosing two passport photographs. On 20 June they hand‑delivered a letter to Jobcentre Plus saying they were still waiting for the NASS 35 form.
Jobcentre Plus told Mr F, on 1 July 2007, that he was not entitled to income support for the period from his asylum application to when he was granted refugee status, because he had not claimed income support within twenty eight days of receiving notice of his grant of refugee status. The solicitors appealed that decision on the grounds that Mr F had not received the refugee status notification until 23 May 2007, and had claimed income support within twenty eight days of that date. On 25 July the solicitors wrote to the Agency, referring to a recent telephone conversation during which the Agency had said they could not trace the solicitors’ letters of 31 May and 15 June 2007, but that they would issue a NASS 35 form on receipt of two further photographs. The solicitors duly enclosed the photographs with their letter. In November the solicitors again wrote to the Agency. They referred to another telephone conversation, during which the Agency had said they could not accept the photographs because they were unsigned, and which they would return for signing. Having not received these photographs back, the solicitors enclosed two further signed photographs with their letter.
On 28 February 2008 Jobcentre Plus wrote to tell the solicitors that they had revised their decision not to backdate Mr F’s income support claim. They said that they would calculate entitlement from Mr F’s date of application for asylum, but needed the NASS 35 form. In March the solicitors told Jobcentre Plus that they were still unable to supply them with the NASS 35 form, and commented that there was nothing to stop Jobcentre Plus from contacting the Agency direct for the information they needed. On 19 March the Agency wrote to Mr F confirming that his asylum claim had been determined and that he no longer qualified for section 4 support. They said they urgently needed two signed photographs before they could issue the NASS 35 form. The solicitors duly sent the Agency two more signed photographs.
In May 2008 Mr F’s Member of Parliament referred a complaint to the Ombudsman. In August Jobcentre Plus told the solicitors that they had faxed the Agency in April requesting the NASS 35 form, and were waiting for a reply. Also in August the Agency told us that they were still waiting for photographs from Mr F. On 14 August the solicitors sent another two signed photographs to the Agency. In September the solicitors sent us a copy of the NASS 35 form they had finally received from the Agency on 27 August, together with a copy of their letter to the Agency querying the date shown on the form indicating when Mr F had submitted his asylum claim, and requesting a revised form. (The date on the form – 31 January 2006 – was the date the Agency had accepted further submissions on Mr F’s asylum claim, not the date of claim, which was 11 December 2000.) The Agency agreed with the solicitors about the date, apologised, and corrected their error. As a result, Jobcentre Plus finally told Mr F, in January 2009, that he was entitled to arrears of income support of £9,724.74.
What we investigated
The complaint we investigated was that the Agency had delayed issuing the NASS 35 form to Mr F, and had repeatedly lost the photographs they had been sent. By Mr F’s account, the Agency’s actions delayed payment of his income support arrears, which caused inconvenience and financial loss. He wanted an apology and compensation. The Agency could not find the file relating to Mr F’s NASS support application. However, his solicitors provided us with copies of their correspondence with the Agency, most of which was accompanied with proof that it had been sent to the Agency by recorded delivery. That was strong evidence that the Agency had received the solicitors’ correspondence.
What our investigation found
The Agency’s handling of Mr F’s request for the NASS 35 form was poor. The form should have accompanied the decision letter of 18 May 2007, but they did not provide him with the form until August 2008, and only then after a request from Jobcentre Plus and the intervention of this Office. The Agency also lost Mr F’s file and four sets of photographs. Indeed, the Agency’s requests for the photographs were unnecessary since, according to their guidance, they can use photographs that they already hold. These errors represented a persistent failure to get things right and amounted to maladministration.
Consequences
What effect did these errors have on Mr F? He suffered significant frustration and a sense of hopelessness that he would ever see the NASS 35 form, or be able to successfully claim his backdated income support. That was money to which he was entitled and which should have been available to him to buy food and other basic necessities. He also incurred the cost of providing five unnecessary sets of photographs, and had to wait fifteen months to receive his income support arrears, which was extremely inconvenient and frustrating.
We upheld Mr F’s complaint.
Resolution
- In line with the Ombudsman’s Principles for Remedy, where maladministration has led to injustice or hardship, public bodies should try to offer a remedy that returns the complainant to the position he or she would otherwise have been in. Where that is not possible, the complainant should be compensated appropriately. In Mr F’s case, therefore, we recommended that the Agency:
- pay him interest (which amounted to £986.86) for the fifteen months he waited unnecessarily
to receive his income support; - pay him £500 to recognise the frustration and inconvenience caused; and
- send him a written apology for their poor handling of his case.
The Agency agreed to implement our recommendations.
