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

[lolo2]

I will also remind you that the lack of British citizenship does not affect the applicant's life within the UK at all...

I would respectfully argue this is not the case for the specific cohort of people affected by these long checks. People choose countries for migration based on the opportunities they enable: innovators, researchers, entrepreneurs, etc. For these people, travel isn't just leisure, it's business.

If a researcher or investor cannot travel effectively because they are stuck on a weak home-country passport for years while waiting for the UK one, the "Global Hub" advantage of the UK would be nil for them. For an ordinary worker, sure, the UK passport is a nice-to-have. But for the very "brightest and the best" the UK wants, that mobility is their livelihood.

I completely get the point of the benefits that having a British passport could bring, however being a British citizen and having a British passport do not make you automatically exempt of being scrutinised based on your country of origin. It can even be the case that foreign countries won't treat you very differently, everyone will know where are you originally from. I can comment on this from personal experience - if you see my flag you might understand what I'm talking about.

I would not rely on data from the timelines posted on this forum to formulate a claim to the Home Office. For example, that timeline from 2015 to 2023 can simply be a typo however, I'm not sure if the user clarified this when posted. Also there are some cases with incomplete information, one case has a post date before decision date (a typo or they can predict the future), etc.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how you could use that argument of the "brightest and the best" or achievements in your argument to the Home Office and how you determined that the "brightest and the best" are most susceptible to trigger extra checks and experience delays. I understand what you want to highlight here but there is simply nothing within the British Nationality Act pondering this to grant citizenship to an individual. Even people who have entered the country illegally (before the last amendment to the good character guidance last year), who served time in jail for criminal offences, etc are granted British citizenship.

Your case reminds me of a friend who has exactly the same name and nationality as someone who is in the list of the most wanted by the Interpol. Very often he has issues when applying for visas or travelling internationally due to this. I'm not saying that this is your case, it's just to highlight that the delay in your application can be due to a plethora of reasons that we don't know and the HO likely will not tell with details.

[gingerbread777]

Any updates?

[tanha_rixby]

Any updates?

Nope.

The only small update is that my caseworker confirmed they chased the external agency again last week. Not sure if it will help, but I'm trying to stay hopeful.

I also asked if they could escalate the backlog/resourcing issue to senior management. They just wrote that "senior management are aware" and that times vary for each individual.

Separately, I submitted evidence to the House of Lords inquiry recently, and helped others do so (those are waiting more years than mine!). Hopefully that results in some changes for everyone in the long run.

Thanks for everyone's support here.

[tanha_rixby]

The only small update is that my caseworker confirmed they chased the external agency again last week. Not sure if it will help, but I'm trying to stay hopeful.

I also asked if they could escalate the backlog/resourcing issue to senior management. They just wrote that "senior management are aware" and that times vary for each individual.

Btw, considering the caseworker's recent response, does it make sense to do any further step now?

The caseworker sent the enquiry to the external agency 15+ months ago, then resubmitted it 9 months ago, and now sent a nudge last week. Should I stay hopeful, or shall I escalate via another channel?

I can:

1. Submit another complaint? (last complaint was in April 2025, waiting in the IEC backlog now). I wonder if I complain again, what point could I make? I also prefer not to annoy the caseworker. I was thinking of complaining for something in line with "No 10 says this is issue to be chased in the HO INTERNALLY, but HO says this is happening EXTERNALLY so it's not their problem, so there is a responsibility gap"?
2. Submit a PaP?. Most solicitors say chances are low given the external agency check is pending, but a few others suggest this is a route one shouldn't leave untried...

Or shall I just wait?

[tanha_rixby]

Hi all,

Quick update on my end: I'm now approaching 600 days (nearly 20 months) and still stuck in the exact same "external agency" black hole.

I’ve been consulting with a few solicitors to figure out if the legal route is actually viable. I wanted to get the forum's no-nonsense take on the reality of the risks involved, as the legal advice I'm getting is very split.

Here is the dilemma:

• The "Cheap" Route (< £1,000): Standard firms suggest doing a Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) just to "shake the tree" internally at the Home Office.
• The "Expert" Route (£15k - £20k): The heavyweights who specialise in these tough delays argue that PAPs have been basically useless for the last 2-3 years. They say the HO just issues a blanket template rejection to a PAP now. According to them, the only way to actually force the HO to liaise with a stubborn external agency is to formally issue Judicial Review (JR) proceedings. They claim that once you issue proceedings, the HO often voluntarily settles and commits to a timeline (e.g., 3 months) to avoid losing in front of a judge.
• The Catch ("Forced Refusal" Risk): One very honest solicitor highlighted a massive downside. If we go to court and successfully force the HO to make a decision within a set timeframe, but the external agency still hasn't cleared the check, the HO will simply reject the application. Because naturalisation is discretionary, they will just claim they "cannot conclude Good Character" in the time given. In short: winning in court could guarantee an automatic refusal of the application.

On the flip side, looking at historical cases and speaking to other Iranians, if you just leave the HO alone, they are perfectly happy to let you rot for 7 to 10 years, or just reject you after 8 years anyway. Doing nothing feels like accepting a decade-long wait.

My questions for the veterans here:

1. What are your thoughts on the "forced refusal" risk? Has anyone actually seen this happen where pushing for a JR resulted in a quick rejection just so the HO could clear their desk?
2. Is there a real, tangible difference between a standard firm charging ~£3,000 to get to the pre-settlement stage versus an elite firm charging £15,000+? Do the expensive ones actually possess some magic leverage, or is it just brand tax?
3. Is it true what the experts say, that PAPs are totally dead now and only issuing full JR proceedings forces the HO to act?

Would appreciate any hard truths or experiences you guys have on this. Thanks again.

[secret.simon]

On the flip side, looking at historical cases and speaking to other Iranians, if you just leave the HO alone, they are perfectly happy to let you rot for 7 to 10 years, or just reject you after 8 years anyway. Doing nothing feels like accepting a decade-long wait.

I am inclined to disbelieve this statement. On these forums, the longest wait I have seen is one for two years and there was another one for a year. The vast majority of applications are approved within months, not years.

I think the respondents to your query may either be being hyperbolic, being economical with the truth or conflating the timeline for their entire immigration journey and that for just their naturalisation application.

What are your thoughts on the "forced refusal" risk? Has anyone actually seen this happen where pushing for a JR resulted in a quick rejection just so the HO could clear their desk?

This is a hypothetical possibility. Keep in mind that the UK approves about 95% of its naturalisation applications. So a rejection is quite rare. And I haven't seen any case on these forums where the applicant has managed to corner the Home Office into this situation.

The "Expert" Route (£15k - £20k): The heavyweights who specialise in these tough delays argue that PAPs have been basically useless for the last 2-3 years. They say the HO just issues a blanket template rejection to a PAP now. According to them, the only way to actually force the HO to liaise with a stubborn external agency is to formally issue Judicial Review (JR) proceedings. They claim that once you issue proceedings, the HO often voluntarily settles and commits to a timeline (e.g., 3 months) to avoid losing in front of a judge.

I have never come across a judicial review for naturalisation on these forums. so if you are still corresponding with these lawyers, can you ask them for examples of such JRs, either conducted by them or by other law firms? How many of them led to successful outcomes? If they do respond with a list of such cases, can you post them here, so that we can all learn from them?

I am inclined to think that judges would be very chary of accepting such cases, because it would make them potentially responsible for naturalisation of controversial cases, rather than a civil servant.

Also, (I'm not a lawyer. Please ask the lawyers you consult about this.), the purpose of a Judicial Review is to *review* if a decision was taken correctly, in accordance with the proper procedure. Can you file a JR about the absence/delay of a decision? That is to say, can you file a JR when there is no decision to judicially review?

[tanha_rixby]

I am inclined to disbelieve this statement. On these forums, the longest wait I have seen is one for two years and there was another one for a year. The vast majority of applications are approved within months, not years.

You’re right that the vast majority clear quickly, but the extreme deadlocks do happen to a tiny minority. I’ve actually seen the SAR logs of another applicant who applied back in 2019. They have already done a couple of pre-action protocols, and the Home Office position is still exactly the same: "checks are pending." So a few cases really do get left in a loop for years.

Also, (I'm not a lawyer. Please ask the lawyers you consult about this.), the purpose of a Judicial Review is to *review* if a decision was taken correctly, in accordance with the proper procedure. Can you file a JR about the absence/delay of a decision? That is to say, can you file a JR when there is no decision to judicially review?

I asked the solicitors about this. They explained that what is actually being reviewed is the *process* and the Home Office's actions so far in reviewing the case. The legal argument is based on the principle of unreasonableness and the sheer unfairness of the delay. Also, while the Home Office has the discretion to grant citizenship, they cannot rigidly "fetter" that discretion by treating an external agency's silence as an indefinite veto.

A win in court means forcing them to make a decision on a quicker timeline. But that is exactly why it's a double-edged sword. If they are forced by a judge to decide quickly, but they still haven't got the check results back, they might feel they have no choice but to reject the application. That is exactly where my hesitation comes from. The solicitors tell me they have won their past cases, but if there are truly no failure cases, I don't get why they are warning me that a forced rejection is a possible risk.

I have never come across a judicial review for naturalisation on these forums. so if you are still corresponding with these lawyers, can you ask them for examples of such JRs, either conducted by them or by other law firms? How many of them led to successful outcomes? If they do respond with a list of such cases, can you post them here, so that we can all learn from them?

They said most successful delay JRs settle privately via Consent Orders before ever reaching a judge, which is why they don't show up on public databases or forums. The very few cases that actually go all the way to court are usually heavy SIAC cases that get an open judgment.

I was actually reading through a public open judgment recently, AB v THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Appeal No: SN/79/2021). The applicant first applied for naturalisation in April 2014. The Home Office took nearly 5 years just to issue a flawed first refusal, and by the time of the open judgment in July 2022 (more than 8 years later) there was still no legally valid decision because they were trapped in an external vetting deadlock.

Aside from SIAC cases, another solicitor told me he is aware of two specific judgments in the Administrative Court. In one case involving a five-year delay, the judge ruled that five years was completely unreasonable. In another case involving a two-year delay, the judge argued it could be reasonable or unreasonable depending entirely on the circumstances.

I am still struggling with how to make the final decision on whether to take this risk or not. On a side note, my MP has just submitted a new request for a ministerial escalation for me. Do people on this forum generally see positive outcomes from these escalations, or is it not even worth waiting a month for the response?

[contorted_svy]

Sometimes they ae successful, sometimes they get the same response. It's another avenue to try, but sadly we can't offer guarantees.

[tanha_rixby]

Finally, after 20 months, it's done.
Thank you all for your invaluable advices through this long and painful journey.

[contorted_svy]

congratulations! Do you have a sense of what could have pushed your application past the finish line?

[tanha_rixby]

congratulations! Do you have a sense of what could have pushed your application past the finish line?

Thanks!

It’s hard to pinpoint one exact thing, but it happened right as I was gearing up for a Judicial Review. Before instructing the solicitor, I decided to do one massive final push across all fronts (complaints, an MP escalation to the minister, and direct emails asking for senior manager intervention).

At first, I just got the usual boilerplate replies. I pushed back and argued, based the exact dates and facts of my timeline, to argue they weren't even reading my emails and that the check didn't make sense timing-wise, and questioned whether it's even been human-reviewed before enquiring, given the fact that there's been a self-admitted IT issue.

That being said, I really don't know if any of them had an effect, as the system never admits whether there was a mistake. Apparently my case was approved one day after I received a boilerplate response, and I kept receiving that "enquiries are necessary" replies even after my case was approved. In one occasion, they even forgot to replace names in their template, so partly it was mentioning my name, partly someone else!

P.S. I also added a letter from employer in which they confirmed that the delay in my application is affecting my career (cannot attend meetings, etc). Apparently it's called "pre-judice" if I'm not mistaken. I provided that multiple times, not sure if it had any effect, but I know that's something that solicitors use for arguing against the delay.

[tanha_rixby]

Something that also might be interesting:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/l ... /13/13.pdf

The house of lords published their report recently, and it has two points that explains why things are done so naively:

299. Due to policy decisions by successive governments, the Home Office is struggling to manage the immigration, settlement, and citizenship system as it currently stands. Increasing the volume and complexity of applications—notwithstanding potential modernisation and efficiency improvements—will only exacerbate this issue. Morale amongst caseworkers is low, and adding whole swathes of repeat checks alongside spending review staff reductions will further exacerbate the situation, and increase their workload and stress.

293. The IfG’s Shaina Sangha told us that whereas in previous decades more Senior Executive Officer (SEO) and Higher Executive Officer (HEO)313grade roles made the majority of initial casework decisions, now “the majority of these roles are filled by executive officers, which are very junior and the pay and morale are very poor”.

No wonder why they are thinking of charging £500 extra as of yesterday to expedite naturalisation decisions. I can only assume the decision time for those who don't pay could get longer, and most people could end up needing to pay.

[alterhase58]

Congratulations, wishing you a smooth journey through the ceremony and passport application.

One has to wonder, applicants through the visa routes have to go through all sorts of hoops (and huge expense), and government working on making it even more complex (and hostile) and if applicants still go for naturalisation one is treated equally worse ...