ILR delay — 8 months, 2 months past committed date — what next?

[waltercho]

Hi all, posting for peer opinions on a long-delayed ILR case. Grateful for any experience or advice.

Background
My wife submitted her ILR application (Set O, Standard, five-year settlement route as an Innovator Dependant) on 2 October 2025. UKVI's acknowledgement letter committed to a decision by 2 April 2026. That date passed with no decision and no explanation. It is now 31 May 2026 — 8 months since submission and 2 months past their own committed date. At no point has a caseworker made contact, requested further information, or explained the delay.

What we have done
We filed a formal complaint on 2 April 2026. Not upheld. The response acknowledged the delay and said the file had been escalated to the casework team with no decision date given. We requested a review; the second complaint response was also not upheld. That response directed us to send evidence of pregnancy to an expedite mailbox for casework team consideration.
We submitted expedite requests with supporting medical evidence on 6 and 7 May 2026. No response has been received to either. Our local MP wrote to UKVI in April 2026; her office has received no substantive response either.

Current position
Our baby has since been born and is a British citizen at birth. I am a British citizen, and other three children (born abroad) have co-pending ILR applications. My wife's existing leave is protected under Section 3C while the application is pending.
To summarise where the escalation routes stand: formal complaint exhausted, expedite mailbox submission ignored, MP enquiry unanswered.

The question
Given that the complaint route is fully exhausted and the expedite submission produced no response, what would you do next? Has anyone been in a similar position with a long-delayed in-country settlement application and found something that actually moved things forward?

[zimba]

I am afraid, you need to wait to hear back.

In a few cases, the ILR can take beyond the 6 months mark and as you complained, they cannot give you a response in that timeframe. Probably, certain checks and verifications are taking much longer than expected, and so a decision cannot be made on this case yet.

[waltercho]

Thank you all for the earlier suggestions on this thread.

The SAR disclosure arrived this week and I wanted to share what it revealed, as I think it may be useful to others stuck in long ILR delays, and I would value your opinions.

Background: my wife applied for settlement in October 2025 as a dependant partner on the Innovator route. I (the lead applicant) had settled with ILR earlier that year, and my naturalisation as a British citizen was granted in March 2026, while her application was pending. Hers is now around nine months in, three months past the service standard. Complaints and MP representations all produced the same "not straightforward, checks ongoing" template.

The SAR paints a different picture. The Atlas case notes show the application was referred for a "route switch" in late February 2026, and the category was then changed to "Partner (Skilled Worker or Tier 2)", which is baffling as I was never a Skilled Worker or Tier 2 migrant. Since then the case has sat in repeated deferral cycles ("await outcome of ongoing proceedings", deadlines rolled roughly monthly and lapsing each time), and it was formally excluded from the service standard as an "exceptionally complex case", with the applicant deliberately not notified. Criminality checks came back "no match" three separate times. There is no visible evidence of any external checks.

My reading of the Home Office's own guidance (Dependent family members in work routes, July 2025 version, and INNF 34.1) is that no route switch was needed at all: a dependant partner can settle on the work route where the lead applicant settled on that route, including where the lead has since become a British citizen. If that is right, the entire delay rests on an unnecessary internal referral and a miscategorisation.

Questions for the group: has anyone seen these "route switch" referrals before, and do they ever resolve without external pressure? Would you go straight to PAP at this point (we are close to sending one), or first put the miscategorisation to UKVI directly and give them a chance to correct it? And has anyone successfully used SAR findings like this in a PAP letter?

Any thoughts appreciated.

[zimba]

Any route changes require variation and a new application, as the UKVI will not do that on their own (the rules do not allow it) and people who apply under the incorrect route, are told to apply again. SAR notes do not give you all the details on why an application is held, as the information and data held on the internal systems are not released at all. You may send a PAP to them

[waltercho]

Thank you, zimba — a fair challenge, so let me add detail.

The form was SET(O), which is the correct form for settlement as a work-route dependant partner; only the category drop-down within it was the generic "other purposes" option, with the actual basis (Innovator dependant partner, sponsor's ILR reference, current leave reference) stated in the explanation box. Notably, when the same applicant extended in 2023, the system had a proper category — the case is held internally as "PBS – LTR – Dependant Joiner" and the grant letter confirms "dependant on the Innovator route". No equivalent option appeared at the settlement stage.

On "UKVI will not change routes on their own": the SAR notes show the opposite happened here. "Referred for route switch" / "route switched" is recorded at six separate steps between 26 February and 11 May 2026, and in March a caseworker completed an internal "application category updated — do you need to correct the category of this application?" step, changing it to "Partner (Skilled Worker or Tier 2)".

Interestingly, that is not the applicant's route either — which suggests their internal system has no Innovator dependant settlement category at all. At no point was the application rejected as invalid or the applicant told to reapply; biometrics were enrolled, criminality checks completed three times, and the complaint replies describe a valid application awaiting checks.

Fully agree the SAR does not show everything — there were substantial redaction blocks. That is why the plan is the PAP rather than more requests for explanations. But on these facts, would you still expect a "wrong route, apply again" outcome nine months in, or is the more likely position that they must simply decide it under the rules the application clearly engaged?