Home > Publications > Selected cases— Parliamentary > Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations: April 2001 to September 2001 > Case No. C.57/01, C.646/01 and C.866/01
Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Selected Cases and Summaries of Completed Investigations
PCA 6th Report – Session 2001-2002
Chapter 2
HOME OFFICE
Immigration and Nationality Directorate and Benefits Agency of the Department for Work and Pensions: unnecessary delay in processing an application for limited leave and indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom on the basis of marriage, leading to loss of benefit entitlement
Mr N complained that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) had unnecessarily delayed handling his application for limited leave to remain, on the basis of his marriage, in the United Kingdom. The Ombudsman found that IND had been actively considering Mr N’s application throughout the two-year period. However, the Ombudsman found a delay of 13 months by IND when they processed Mr N’s subsequent application for indefinite leave to remain. The then Permanent Under Secretary of State blamed IND’s failings on the disruption caused by their reorganisation into a single integrated casework directorate. He offered apologies to Mr N for IND’s delay and described the steps taken to improve their service. The Ombudsman found that IND’s delay had not adversely affected Mr N’s entitlement to benefit, but rather that he had been incorrectly deprived of benefit because of a Benefits Agency error. As a result of that error, Mr N had lost the use of a specially adapted car that had met his mobility needs. The Benefits Agency offered apologies to Mr N, reimbursed him £1,443 representing lost benefit, and made him ex gratia payments totalling £254.27; they also offered to consider further Mr N’s claim for severe distress, if he could provide objective evidence to support it.
Back to top
Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the Court Service of the Lord Chancellor’s Department: delay in confirming refugee status
Mr D complained that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) of the Home Office had mislaid documents that supported his appeal against a refusal of asylum and had adjourned his appeal hearings three times, twice without notice. They had also placed applications from both Mr D and his separated wife erroneously on the same file. He also complained that, following his award of refugee status on 3 December 1998, it was not until 19 July 2000 that IND had sent to the correct address a letter confirming his refugee status. Furthermore, although Mr D had applied for a travel document on 23 June 1999, IND had not issued one until 14 September 2000. The Ombudsman did not uphold every element of Mr D’s complaint. In particular, he did not find fault with IND’s handling of the appeal documents and files, or with their involvement in the adjournments of the appeal hearings. However, he found that there had been a substantial delay by IND in providing Mr D with the letter confirming his award of refugee status. There had been further delay in the issue by IND of Mr D’s travel document. The Director General of IND apologised for those delays, described improvements which should help to prevent such delays in future, and offered to consider reimbursing any additional legal costs necessarily incurred by Mr D as a result. In addition, the Court Service agreed to consider reimbursing part of any additional costs incurred by Mr D as a result of an abortive hearing.
Back to top
HM Prison Service: handling of a prisoner’s personal belongings following a disturbance
Mrs A complained that the Prison Service had failed to take adequate steps to ensure the safe keeping of her son’s personal belongings following a disturbance at the prison, where he was an inmate. The Ombudsman did not attribute to maladministration by the Prison Service whatever losses Mr A had suffered during the disturbance because there had been a period of time when neither Mr A nor the prison staff had been able to safeguard his belongings. However, it appeared that after the disturbance prison staff had succeeded in recovering some of Mr A’s belongings (or items matching their description), only to misplace them again. To make matters worse, when Mrs A had told the prison that her son had not received the recovered belongings, which they had promised they would send on to him at his new location, she was told that that promise had been an error and that none of her son’s belongings had been recovered. The Ombudsman criticised the prison for having mishandled the process of returning to Mr A such of his belongings as had been recovered after the disturbance, and for having responded inadequately to subsequent complaints on the matter. The Director General apologised for the time taken to resolve the matter, undertook to monitor complaint handling at the prison with a view to preventing a recurrence, and agreed to pay Mr A compensation of £210 in respect of his lost belongings.
Previous < Contents > Next
Back to top
|
