Home > Publications > Selected cases — Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - April - September 2000 > Home Office
Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations - April to September 2000
Volume 3 - 3rd REPORT - SESSION 2000-2001
Chapter 2
HOME OFFICE
Case No: C.723/00
Immigration and Nationality Directorate: conduct of an immigration officer and investigation of a complaint
The Ombudsman found that the Immigration Service's use of the word "interview" may have led to a misunderstanding as to what Mr K had expected when he was invited to attend the Immigration Service for the purpose of informing him that his application for asylum had been refused. The Ombudsman was unable to make a finding on what had happened during the meeting between Mr K and the immigration officer because of conflicting accounts; neither was he able to ascertain exactly the content of a conversation between Mr K and the Immigration Service's chief immigration officer about the procedure for making a complaint about the interview. The Permanent Under Secretary of the Home Office said that the results of a pilot study into the use of tape recorders at refusal of asylum interviews would be considered; that minor changes in procedure at such interviews had been made; and that they would consider whether additional information for the public about making a complaint should be made available. The Ombudsman found the Immigration Service's decision initially to investigate Mr K's complaint informally to have been pragmatic. He found that there had then been delay in the Immigration Service's formal investigation of Mr K's complaint, by which time the immigration officer concerned was unavailable for interview. However, in those circumstances he did not find fault with the Immigration Service's decision to conclude their investigation without interviewing the immigration officer since she had been interviewed by the chief immigration officer contemporaneously and to do so would have prolonged the investigation still further. The Permanent Under Secretary gave an assurance to Mr K that the outcome of his appeal against refusal of asylum would not be prejudiced by his complaint or by the events of his refusal of asylum interview.
Back to top
Case No: C.940/00
Immigration and Nationality Directorate: loss of passport and accompanying documents
The Ombudsman found that Immigration and Nationality Directorate (the Directorate) had lost Mr W's Turkish passport and accompanying documents following an application for endorsement of his passport to show indefinite leave to remain status. Despite numerous telephone calls and faxes to the Directorate, it was only after a personal visit to the Directorate (taking a whole day) that they definitively told Mr and Mrs W that they had lost the documents and provided Mr W with a letter to take to the Turkish Embassy so that he might get a replacement passport. As a result of the passport being lost Mr and Mrs W were unable take an imminent holiday to France and, following the earthquake in Turkey, visit Mr W's immediate relatives. Mr and Mrs W engaged a solicitor to make representations to the Directorate on their behalf so that they might receive an explanation. The Directorate failed to reply to those representations. The Permanent Under Secretary of the Home Office apologised for the poor service and agreed to reimburse Mr and Mrs W's reasonable costs and losses in respect of their lost holiday and incidental expenses and make an ex gratia payment of £200 in recognition of stress and inconvenience. At the Ombudsman's suggestion the Directorate agreed to consider compensating Mr W for the cost of his replacement passport and for the additional solicitors' fees which Mr and Mrs W had incurred.
Back to top
Case No: C.1181/00
Immigration and Nationality Directorate: delay and mishandling in processing an application for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom
The Ombudsman upheld a complaint from Mr S that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate had mishandled his application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. He found that the Directorate delayed before replying to Mr S's correspondence, having first given conflicting advice over the telephone, and then being unavailable by telephone. The Directorate gave Mr S incorrect advice and lost the application and supporting documents which Mr S had provided following advice from them. In addition, the Directorate had delayed in answering Mr S's urgent enquiries about his application, which had led to him having to cancel a booked holiday and then to reinstate it at a cost. The Permanent Under Secretary blamed the Directorate's failings on upheaval caused by their reorganisation into a single integrated casework directorate. He offered apologies to Mr S for the mishandling, and agreed to give further consideration to making him an ex gratia payment in respect of losses actually incurred on the production of further evidence, and to pay him £100 on an ex gratia basis in recognition of stress and inconvenience he had been caused. The Permanent Under Secretary also described the steps the Directorate had taken to improve their service.
Back to top
Case No: C.1356/00
Immigration and Nationality Directorate: delay in processing an application for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom
The Ombudsman found that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate had acted in accordance with their policy when they had refused to tell Mr A why his wife's application could not be processed quickly. The Ombudsman criticised the Directorate for losing Mr and Mrs A's passports and other documents for over 11 weeks. That had delayed the processing of Mrs A's application. The Ombudsman found that the delay had not led directly to Mr A losing a £50,000 job contract in Tanzania, nor to him losing the enjoyment of two weeks holiday in Goa. The Ombudsman noted that Mr A had saved £636 on booking flights to Goa which were cheaper than those that he had had to cancel as a result of the delay. He considered that as suitable redress for the stress, inconvenience, and uncertainty which Mr and Mrs A had suffered. The Permanent Under Secretary of State at the Home Office apologised to Mr A for the poor service he had received, which he attributed to upheaval caused by the reorganisation of all the Directorate's caseworking areas into a single integrated casework directorate. He said that future revisions of application forms would carry more accurate predictions of likely processing times, and that that information would be publicised on the Directorate's website later in the year. He also described the steps that had been taken to improve their service generally since the reorganisation.
Back to top
Case No: C.453/00
Prison Service: handling of a decision to transfer a prisoner to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983
Mr P's solicitors complained that maladministration by the Prison Service had led to Mr P, who was serving a custodial sentence, being transferred from prison to a secure psychiatric unit on the day that he was due to be released, contrary to Home Office guidance that such a transfer should not be delayed until close to the release date. The Ombudsman found that by having Mr P examined by a psychiatrist and by contacting a consultant who they had reason to believe would take responsibility for providing a hospital bed for Mr P should that prove necessary, the prison had acted quickly and appropriately in accordance with the guidance. The subsequent delay in resolving the matter had been caused by difficulties in obtaining an examination of Mr P by the consultant, which were exacerbated by confusion as to Mr P's address. Those difficulties had not been of the prison's making and the steps that the prison had taken to overcome them had been reasonable and ultimately successful, albeit at a later point in Mr P's short term of imprisonment than was desirable.
Back to top
Previous < Contents > Next
|
