Annual Report 2007-08 - the Parliamentary and Health Service ...

Parliamentray and health service ombudsman annuall report 2007/084Case StudyDelay on asylum decisioncaused distress and hardshipMs V, a Nigerian national, is thought to have arrived in the UKsome time during 1988-89, to join her father, Mr V. In February 1993the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office(IND) told Mr V that he had no basis to stay in the UK and wouldhave to leave immediately. IND had no further contact withMs V or her father until February 1998, when solicitors requestedfurther leave to remain, on the basis of Mr V’s marriage to aFrench national.Mr V was subsequently granted a European Economic Area (EEA)family residence permit until 10 February 2004. In February 2004Mr V applied for indefinite leave to remain as the family memberof an EEA national (with Ms V included as a dependant). In MayMs V applied for indefinite leave to remain based on her longresidence, and shortly afterwards IND refused Mr V’s application.They wrote to ask Ms V for further information in support of herapplication on 27 September 2006. In October IND was informedthat Ms V was pregnant. In December Ms V applied for incomesupport and other maternity-related benefits but was ineligiblebecause she had no National Insurance number. In January 2007Ms V told what was by now the Border and Immigration Agencyshe was homeless and pregnant. In March the Agency requestedfurther information in support of Ms V’s application.Ms V complained to the Ombudsman about the Agency’s delayin deciding her application, which she said had meant she couldnot obtain stable employment or claim state benefits. Her debtswere growing. She was almost nine months pregnant with twinsand concerned that her children would be removed if herapplication was not determined.We upheld Ms V’s complaint. Apart from its letter of27 September 2006 (which Ms V did not receive because itwas sent to the wrong address) the Agency took no meaningfulaction on her case between May 2004 and March 2007, and didnot consider prioritising it on learning that she was pregnant andhomeless. Although the Agency subsequently granted Ms Vindefinite leave to remain on 17 May 2007, that did not completelyremedy the injustice to her, as we considered that she would haveobtained a National Insurance number and successfully claimedbenefits, but for the Agency’s maladministration. The Agencyagreed to consider a claim from Ms V equivalent to incomesupport forgone between 1 January and 17 May 2007 andequivalent to child benefit and child tax credit forgone between20 March and 17 May 2007. In addition the Agency accepted thatMs V had been inconvenienced at a time when she could havebeen considered to be particularly vulnerable, and awarded hera consolatory payment of £300.The need for local leadershipPublic service providers should operatea complaint handling service that is fitfor purpose and responsive, and theirsenior managers should understand thevalue of taking on board the lessonslearnt from complaints. For these thingsto happen, it is necessary for managersat all levels to take a lead in ensuring thatcomplaints are taken seriously andhandled properly. However, this oftendoes not happen.Lack of local leadership in complainthandling by senior managers withindepartments and agencies was anotherclear thread running through ourcasework in 2007-08. In some cases itwas a factor in a complainant’s decisionto refer a complaint to us, when timelylocal resolution might well have beenpossible if a senior manager had takenappropriate action at an earlier stage.For instance, in the case of Ms V,a Nigerian national, the Border andImmigration Agency took no meaningfulaction on her asylum application foralmost three years and did not considerprioritising it even after she told themshe was pregnant and homeless. Leavewas subsequently granted, but it is clearthat local leadership was sadly lackingboth in the initial handling of the caseand in the Agency’s reaction to Ms V’sconcerns about the long delay inprocessing her application.17