Conflicting Home Office Updates: "IT Issue" vs. "Outstanding Check" & What Next?

[secret.simon]

I’m close to losing a good opportunity because of the uncertainty. I’m genuinely worried that a long absence might be misread by a caseworker as showing a lack of intent to settle

That's exactly how I would interpret that too.

Keep in mind that while you are free to travel after the application, a long absence (which the Home Office can also gather from API submitted by travel companies) can be used to infer that you don't meet the future intentions requirement.

If applicants say their intention is to have their principal home in the UK, you should accept that they meet the requirement if they:

meet the residence requirements, without the need to exercise any discretion over excess absences other than up to 30 days
have an established home here
have been, or intend to be, absent from the UK for not more than 6 months
the absence was, or will be, clearly temporary
if it is an intended absence, we are satisfied they intend to return to the UK
they have maintained an established home here where any close family who have not accompanied them abroad have continued to live
there is no information to cast doubt on their intention, for example, either:
- a partner who is or intends to live outside of the UK
- a recent absence from the UK for a period of 6 months or more

If I recall correctly, a former version of the caseworker guidance explicitly stated that an absence at the time of application or a long absence shortly after application would cause the application to be scrutinised further about meeting the future intentions requirement(though it also explicitly stated that it could not be the sole reason for refusal).

EDIT: Also see this earlier post by me on another thread, which quoted from an older version of the caseworker guidance about absences for six months.

[tanha_rixby]

Hi all,

Just received another reply from the Home Office (with proper letterhead and logo regarding my application, and there’s one specific line that's worrying me a bit. It says something along the lines of:

"Character is not defined and a fairly broad view has to be taken when judging whether this requirement has been satisfied."

...and then goes on to say that enquiries are still pending and their progress is regularly monitored, etc.

I have a feeling they’ll send the exact same response to the MP enquiry, the complaint I submitted, and any further emails I’ve sent so far.

Also, the reply came from “Dept 56”. Does anyone know what that team handles exactly, or whether that means something specific in terms of how the case is being reviewed?

I'm a bit confused by this statement because I thought the "good character" requirement is pretty clearly defined in the official guidance for caseworkers.

Does anyone know why a caseworker would say something like this? Is this normal wording, or does it suggest they might be taking a subjective approach to assessing good character in my case?

Also, if this suggests the caseworker might be interpreting guidelines differently, is there anything I can (or should) do to challenge or clarify this at this stage?

Thanks again for any insights!

[contorted_svy]

The whole thing sounds very much like another boilerplate response. I wouldn't worry too much or read details into it. Do you have anything specific that worries you about good character?

It seems your application is just on the slower side. If there are specific issues they will ask you directly.

[tanha_rixby]

The whole thing sounds very much like another boilerplate response. I wouldn't worry too much or read details into it. Do you have anything specific that worries you about good character?

It seems your application is just on the slower side. If there are specific issues they will ask you directly.

Thanks, appreciate the reply. To answer your question: no, I don’t have anything in mind that I believe would cause a concern for “good character”. That’s exactly why this kind of vague language makes me slightly nervous. But you’re probably right that it’s boilerplate.

That said, I’m honestly a bit stuck on what I’m supposed to do next.

This reply came in response to an email I sent before the six-month point. Since then, I’ve already:

1. written a proper complaint*
2. involved my MP
3. sent further follow-ups with more context, including my SAR findings (which show no visible movement since the end of October)

It’s been a couple of weeks since I sent those complaints and follow-ups (almost right after my 6-month point), but I haven’t received any replies to any of them yet. And now that I’ve just got this message to an older enquiry basically saying “enquiries are still pending,” I don’t know what else I’m expected to do.

Here’s what I’m struggling with. I know they’ll probably keep replying with the same “enquiries pending” line. But wouldn’t it look a bit weird if I keep sending emails right after they’ve just told me that? Am I just going to send the same thing 10 times over the year and get the same reply 10 times with the same response?

On the other hand, I know these emails act as little nudges or pokes and each email might make someone take a proper look. So I still want to keep following up by sending them, but I honestly don’t know how to word those emails without sounding silly or like I’m ignoring what they’ve just said. I obviously can’t tell them how to do their job or say “go chase your checks”, but I also don’t want to just sit back and let it drag for another six months.

So how do I chase it now, without sounding like I’m being unreasonable or just repeating myself? That’s really the dilemma.

Alternatively, would it make sense to now escalate this to someone higher up, like writing to the Minister for Immigration or something like that, and just ask them to help unblock the outstanding checks (whatever they are)? Or is that not the right route yet?

Genuinely just not sure what the next sensible move is here, and would appreciate thoughts. I don’t want to sit around doing nothing, but I also don’t want to write another follow-up that annoys the caseworker (especially the kind of caseworker who believes "good character" has a vague definition).

Thanks again.

[contorted_svy]

We have already said this: nothing you do has the power to sway the decision or annoy the caseworker. It is within your rights to follow up.

That being said - there is nothing you are expected to do, really, except wait for an outcome. You can perfectly send the same email every month, adding any recent developments - eg I note you replied to me on the xx/xx/2025, which didn't provide an update on my application.

You have written a complaint, now you need to wait for a response to that (it should take up to 3 weeks, but, as you can guess, it is sometimes more) and once you have that you can request a review of your complaint. You can also write to the minister of migration if you want, but be aware that sometimes that also generates a boilerplate response.

[tanha_rixby]

Hi all,

I’d appreciate any thoughts/advice as I’m getting contradictory updates from the Home Office about my naturalisation application and now don’t know what argument to make or what step to take next.

Here is my timeline:

• 25 October: Application submitted, biometrics completed right after.
• 15 April: Got SAR results, which showed all standard checks done a couple days after biometrics, then no progress/activity for nearly 6 months.
• 23-27 April: Submitted formal complaint, MP letter, and direct enquiries.
• On 8 May, HO replied to one of my emails that: “mandatory checks have been re-requested” and “awaiting results of one particular check.” No mention of IT problems.
• On 16 May I got a reply to another email of mine, which contained an email thread with two emails inside:
  • On 13 May, and internal HO email (from correspondence team) says the case is still “not assigned to a caseworker” and status is “Application Received.”, so asked for chasing from their colleageus. It also cc'ed NationalityFrontEndTechnicalSpecialists@homeoffice.gov.uk, which (I guess) means something went wrong technically.
  • On 16 May, they wrote to me (sender's name is something like "FET XYZ" - either a caseworker or a technical front end specialist), and mentioned that the delay in my application "has been caused by an IT issue. We have reported the issue, will ensure it is resolved as soon as possible and will expedite completion of your application when it is resolved.", but also mentioned they can't give any timescales.
• On 23 May, my MP got an HO update: saying that there is one remaining check and "on 8 May 2025 these checks were re-requested, we are now awaiting the results,” and the application is not decision-ready until the check(s) are complete. They also mentioned they can't give any timescales.
• I also got my SAR the same time which confirms that a new check was indeed requested on 8 May, and it's about “Nationality application – standard: Resolve identity started” (all details redacted. I wonder what this check is... what are they checking to resolve about my identity? ).

So far, I have received responses that basically silence any new argument I can make in my next moves, such as:

• “Your case is being monitored”
• “Check just re-requested, wait for the result”
• “IT issue, will expedite after resolved”
• “We don’t need anything from you”
• “Don’t read into the lack of SAR notes” (they wrote in the MP letter: “lack of notes does not mean we are not aware of it.”)

I am confused and need advice on these points:

• If checks were re-requested on 8 May, why did another HO team (on 13 May) still see my case as unassigned to a caseworker? Is it wise to reply and ask why I’m getting different explanations from different channels (IT issue vs. outstanding check)? Maybe this "remaining identity check" is the same as the "IT issue" that they told me about, but if not, could it be that the IT issue is actually causing the checks to fail, but the two teams are not aware of each other?
• Is “Resolve identity started” just a routine status, or does it usually mean something is missing/wrong with my file?
• Now that every argument I have made has been met with a “wait” or “we’re doing what we can” answer, what else can I actually do? Should I keep pushing or just wait for the complaint response? Is there any other channel to escalate if the complaint doesn’t help?
• And finally, would it be ok to reference individuals from the HO? For example, is it oks to write an complaint/email and say something like:

I was told on [Date] by Mr XYZ from the correspondence team “…”, but on [Date], FET XYZ wrote “…”, and then on [Date], the MP Account Management Team wrote “…” — these are contradictory, and I’m concerned something might have gone wrong between the technical teams and caseworkers.

Any insight or suggestions would be very welcome.

[contorted_svy]

It seems something is happening. I would wait a couple of weeks and respond with a timeline of the communications you received, and ask if the IT issue has been resolved.

[tanha_rixby]

On point 1, not much that you can do. On point 2, as we reiterated above, you are free to travel. It is not on the guidance and you won't be assessed on your absences post application.

Thanks contorted_svy. Appreciate that. Things might be moving on the application front (the IT issue/checks saga continues!), but direct HO comms are still vague on actual timelines for a decision. So, in parallel, I'm trying to figure out the best way to chase my formal complaint, which is now overdue.

Quick recap of the complaint situation:

• My naturalisation app was submitted around 25 Oct.
• Late April (after 6 months passed): Submitted formal Stage 1 complaint to complaints@homeoffice.gov.uk.
• HO's target for complaint response is 20 working days.
• My complaint has now been pending for 25 working days, which is 5 working days past the 20-working-day target.
• Sent a chaser email to complaints@homeoffice.gov.uk on 28 May about the overdue complaint. No reply to that either.

So, my questions are now focused on how to deal with the overdue complaint:

1. Given the Stage 1 complaint is 5 working days past its deadline and my chaser has been ignored, does it make sense to escalate to Stage 2 review now by emailing complaintsreview@homeoffice.gov.uk? The grounds would be the failure to provide the Stage 1 response within their stated timeframe.
2. If yes to Q1: We all know HO can take ages to even open emails. If I send a Stage 2 review request now, could I word it conditionally? Something like: "If a Stage 1 response does arrive before you process this review request, but it doesn't lead to a decision on my application, please still consider this email as my formal request for a review of that Stage 1 response." Or is that just wishful thinking?
3. MP Involvement: Is it worth asking my MP to specifically chase the overdue complaint response? They're already involved with the main application delay.
4. Ministerial Escalation: What about writing to the Minister for Migration or the Home Secretary? Is it fair game to say their official complaints channel isn't meeting its own SLA, so I'm seeking higher help? Or is that likely to be ignored/backfire?
5. Physical Letters: Emails to HO seem to enter a black hole for weeks/months. Does anyone have experience with sending a physical letter to the Complaints Allocation Hub for complaints? Is there any chance it might get seen or actioned faster than an email, or is it all the same queue?

Thanks for any thoughts on these specific points!

[secret.simon]

MP Involvement: Is it worth asking my MP to specifically chase the overdue complaint response? They're already involved with the main application delay.

No harm whatsoever in doing that.

Ministerial Escalation: What about writing to the Minister for Migration or the Home Secretary? Is it fair game to say their official complaints channel isn't meeting its own SLA, so I'm seeking higher help? Or is that likely to be ignored/backfire?

You can try. The key word there is "try".

The parliamentary contact details for the relevant ministers are precisely that; parliamentary and for their constituency work as MPs. Some constituency offices will require you to provide them your postal address and will not process your queries if you are not their constituent. Some may forward it onto the ministerial office, some may not. Some may only respond by physical (snail mail) letter, which prevents or makes more difficult a rapid-fire email exchange.

The current Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper's website for contacting her clearly states

If you are contacting Yvette as Home Secretary, then please email public.enquiries@homeoffice.gov.uk.Only residents of Pontefract, Castleford, Knottingley and Altofts messages can be responded through this website.

You can email her parliamentary office, but it is quite likely you will get the same response. There is a clear delineation between contacting her as your MP and contacting her as the Home Secretary. They are the same human person, but two different and distinct legal persons and offices. It will likewise be the same for the Minister for Immigration.

If you need help in sleeping at night, there is a fascinating book, The King's Two Bodies, which goes into great detail about the difference between the King as a human person, who eats and drinks and sleeps, etc, and the King as a body of state, whose existence is entirely legal and not physical. It is similar with the MP and the Home Secretary being the same physical person, but two separate and different legal persons and offices.

Physical Letters: Emails to HO seem to enter a black hole for weeks/months. Does anyone have experience with sending a physical letter to the Complaints Allocation Hub for complaints? Is there any chance it might get seen or actioned faster than an email, or is it all the same queue?

You can definitely try this. But I don't expect a different outcome. I work in a contact centre. All that happens when we get a physical letter as opposed to an email is that we will scan it and add it to the exact same system that an email would have gone into automatically. So you are creating an extra step at the receiving office, but I won't expect a different outcome to an email.

Again, keep in mind that the six month target for naturalisation application and the 20 working day target for responding to complaints are precisely that; targets. They are not legally enforceable, but internal office aspirations. And as anybody who's worked n an office environment will tell you, targets can and will be missed. You may not be able to manage the Home office, but you may be able to manage your own expectations.

[contorted_svy]

There is no point in asking for a review of your complaint before you receive a response. Appreciate they are late but they are not forced to keep to those targets. Requesting a complaint review would lead to no outcome. Unfortunately, as frustrating as it is, the best thing to do at this point is to wait some more.

[tanha_rixby]

Hi,

I believe I have exhausted all channels and nothing is working now. What do you think of writing to specific senior officials at the home office?

Just a recap:

- My complaints submitted on 27 April (after the 6-month point) is not yet answered. I followed up with emails, postal letters, everything, but no response.

And for other channels:
- The nationality team and MP correspondance team said mid-may that a single check is re-requested and is pending. -- it's been almost 34 working days.
- The technical team (Nationality Front End Technical Specialists) said at the same time that this is due to an IT issue that has been reported.
- My SAR shows that my "Identity" documents cannot be shown due to an error, and the check by the nationality team is also about "resolving Identity"... so I guess they are looking for my "identity" but sadly it seems the two teams are not coordinating to resolve this.


So I'm thinking of writing to some of the senior people at the Home office and explain the situation (i.e., the case is seemingly being stuck between technical and casework teams) and ask for help. My worry is that unless someone senior brings together the relevant technical and casework teams to diagnose and fix the problem, I worry my case could remain on hold for years.

Now, firstly, I don't know if this is a good idea to escalate this way. Most of these officials have no email or it's just public.enquiries@homeoffice which I don't think is ready by them.

Second, I am thinking of sending the letter to these people what do you think?
- Director General, Customer Services Group and Director General, UK Visas and Immigration: Joanna Rowland https://www.gov.uk/government/people/joanna-rowland (by email and post)
- Send physical letters to Home Office Permanent Secretary Email and Telephone, Mr Matthew Rycroft (by post)
- Send physical letters to FAO: Home secreteray and Minister for migration to their Home office address (by post)
- Sending email to privateoffice.external@homeoffice.gov.uk (apparently for HO or her perm secretary)
- Sending letters to "Head of Complaints Team"
- Sending letters to "Head of Nationality Department"

Which of these make sense?


Also, a side question: my MP's office once asked me if I have a complaint number and I said no such thing is emailed to me (though I sent the confirmation email of the complaint) -- I am not sure if others get a complaint number. None of my further "complaint for late complaint" submissions got any complaint number either.

Thanks!

[tanha_rixby]

I've reorganised my previous post to make the situation and my questions clearer. I would be very grateful for any guidance or thoughts you might have on my plan:

Hi everyone,

I believe I have exhausted all standard channels for my nationality application and am seeking advice on escalating to senior Home Office officials.

Case Summary:

• My application is stuck well past the 6-month mark. My official complaint, submitted on 27 April, remains unanswered despite follow-ups.
• In mid-May, both the nationality team and the MP correspondence team informed my MP that a single, pending check was being re-requested. It has now been over 35 working days with no progress.
• The Home Office's technical team stated this delay is due to a reported IT issue.
• My Subject Access Request (SAR) seems to confirm this: it shows an error preventing my "Identity" documents from being viewed. The pending casework check is specifically to "resolve Identity". It appears my case is frozen because the technical and casework teams are not coordinating to resolve this IT error.

Proposed Escalation Plan:
My concern is that without senior intervention to bridge this gap between the technical and casework teams, my application will remain stuck indefinitely. I am therefore considering writing directly to senior management to explain the situation and request their assistance.

My primary questions are:

1. Is this a sensible strategy?
2. How might the Home Office react to receiving letters for multiple senior officials at once? I feel I must try all avenues as I don't know which, if any, will be successful.

My plan is to send physical letters addressed as "FAO: [Official's Title]" to the main Home Office addresses.
List of Potential Recipients:

• “FAO: Director General, Customer Services Group and UKVI” (Joanna Rowland)
• “FAO: Home Office Permanent Secretary” (Mr Matthew Rycroft)
• “FAO: The Home Secretary”
• “FAO: The Minister for Migration”
• “FAO: Head of Complaints Team” (Croydon)
• “FAO: Head of Nationality Department” (Croydon and Liverpool addresses)

Any advice or shared experiences on this escalation strategy would be greatly appreciated.

Side Question: My MP’s office asked for a complaint reference number. I never received one via email for my initial complaint or for my subsequent complaints about the lack of a response. Is it standard practice to receive a complaint number? The absence of one seems to be part of the communication breakdown.

Thank you.

[contorted_svy]

All the ways we are aware of are listed in the sticky post in this group. In order to keep escalating you need a review of your complaint. You are welcome to try avenues and please do report back with your outcome so we can update our advice.

[tanha_rixby]

Thanks. Any advice on my side question? I don't get any complaint "number/reference" whenever I complaint (or complaint about delay of complaint), I just get an email but there is nothing in the confirmation email other than my application number.

Do others who submit a complaint get a complaint number?

I'm asking because my MP's office asked me this question, which confused me:

We’re about to follow up with the Home Office on this for you, but do you have the specific complaint reference? I can see XXX-XXX-XXX-XXXX/00 but this is usually a Unique Application Number (UAN) rather than a complaint reference?

I just want to see if "not getting a complaint number" is also a part of the "IT issue" with my profile, or is it the same for everyone.

[contorted_svy]

I don't know if people get complaint reference numbers. You can just attach the email thread and explain you weren't given a complaint number.

[tanha_rixby]

Hi, quick update and a question —promise this is my last one on this topic until the next (hopefully final) news:

I just got a reply today from UKVI about my complaint. They say they sent a full response to my original complaint (about my naturalisation delay) to my email on 29th May, but I’ve never received it, nothing in spam, junk, etc. The reply I did get today has a new complaint reference (COMP/xxxxx/25), but I think this is only for my follow-up emails about the missing reply, not the original complaint itself.

My worry is the window for Stage 2 review is only one month, so the clock is basically running out. If they count from 29th May, I don’t have long at all, and I still don’t have the reference or content of their supposed Stage 1 response.

Questions:

1. In this situation, is it safe to go ahead and request Stage 2 review using the new reference number I got today, or is it likely the review team will reject it because I don’t have the reference for the actual original complaint?

2. For Stage 2: is it best to just keep it very brief and simply say I’m not happy with the Stage 1 outcome and want a review, or is it better to go into detail, point out what was missed, and provide extra evidence? I’m not sure if they ever really investigate at Stage 2, or if it’s just a formality before ICE.

Would appreciate any quick thoughts. Thanks for all the help so far!

[contorted_svy]

Try to escalate it explaining you got his response but that you never saw the actual text. You haven't received an outcome so you would still want to uphold the compliant.

[tanha_rixby]

Quick update: got the Stage 2 complaint response. As expected, it was another generic template. So, now I'm drafting my complaint to the IEC.

Before I send it, I’d be grateful for a quick sanity check on my strategy:

1. Focus: Is it better to frame this as 'systemic failure' and 'maladministation' (tech and casework teams not coordinating on a known IT issue), or just focus on the fact that the application is delayed'?
2. Wording: Is it safe to call UKVI's communication 'misleading' for using the term 'enquiries' as a shield to cover up not effectively chasing an internal IT problem? Or is that too risky?
3. Resolution: Is asking the IEC to recommend a 'final decision within XX days (e.g. 28 days)' a reasonable request to include?

Thanks!

[tanha_rixby]

Quick update: got the Stage 2 complaint response. As expected, it was another generic template. So, now I'm drafting my complaint to the IEC.

Before I send it, I’d be grateful for a quick sanity check on my strategy:

1. Focus: Is it better to frame this as 'systemic failure' and 'maladministation' (tech and casework teams not coordinating on a known IT issue), or just focus on the fact that the application is delayed'?
2. Wording: Is it safe to call UKVI's communication 'misleading' for using the term 'enquiries' as a shield to cover up not effectively chasing an internal IT problem? Or is that too risky?
3. Resolution: Is asking the IEC to recommend a 'final decision within XX days (e.g. 28 days)' a reasonable request to include?

Thanks!

Also, two complimentary questions about the form:

1. "Date of incident": Is it the date where the 6-month point was passed? Or when I applied? or when I filed a complaint? Or when I got the stage 2 complaint response?

2. "Name of officer(s) and / or ID number(s) of those involved if known": I can mention specific people who replied to me (from multiple teams: technical team, nationality team, public relations, and complaints team), but shall I mention people's names/IDs here? or shall I leave it blank?
I don't want to make it personal to any of them, as my point is that home office administaration is incapable of bringing the relevant teams together and trace/resolve internal issues (IT issues, in my case) so that the nationality team can have all the input needed to make the decision. So what do you think? Shall I mention specific people or leave it empty?

Thanks again!

[contorted_svy]

- I would focus on tne fact the application is delayed and the lack of clarity in the communication you received (we don't know what their enquiries are, they may well also be internal)
- Similarly I would request clarity and better joined-up work to highlight what exactly is the issue
- I don't think you can ask the IEC to recommend a timeframe for the decision, no idea if they can force the HO to release a decision in a certain timeframe. Highlight how long you have been waiting for and request an outcome to be released as soon as possible. Not sure that attaching a deadline would help.
- I don't think the date of the incident matters too much in this case, put the date your application reached the 6 months mark.
- I would put all the names of people and departments you have, with the facts. You are not asking for retaliation, but for clarity. You are within your rights to say what you know and make your point about the lack of internal coordination in your case.