Thanks for the discussion.
I've just had a new round of responses from various official channels. They confirmed that:
- There was an IT issue that affected a number of applicants, including mine, but they're claiming it wasn't the primary reason for the delay. (Confusing, right?) They also confirmed the IT issue is now resolved.
- They can't progress the application due to 'outstanding checks'. They're unable to give a date for completion. They mentioned they'd request the checks to be expedited; however, as there is a backlog of cases that require consideration, they cannot provide a timeframe at this stage.
- Essentially, they cannot provide any timescale for a decision.
It feels like the enquiries I sent to senior officials were just redirected back to the standard nationality team, because the response was the usual generic one.
I'm considering whether a ministerial escalation through my MP is worthwhile, but I'm struggling to come up with new arguments, given they've now shifted the reason for the delay.
My interpretation of the situation has really changed over time, and it feels like it's getting worse. Initially, I thought a decision was just around the corner. Then, it seemed to be a simple IT issue or a single check. But now with the mention of multiple "mandatory checks", "external agencies", and a "backlog", I'm worried this could drag on for years.
Also, a few clarifications regarding the points discussed above:
Thanks for the link. I’ve had US visas before but never actually travelled there. There were never any rejections. Based on my SAR, the “request sent to International Partner” (in this case, the US) was actually responded to on the same day, so it doesn’t seem to be a cause of delay in my case.
mmicky5050 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 24, 2025 9:04 pm
- I think I had already suggested above that the parliamentary offices will not deal with ministerial casework, which is exactly what happened. So thank you for putting in the effort to prove my argument.
Yes, I agree the parliamentary offices don’t process ministerial casework. You can contact ministers (via physical letters or your MP), but they've been forwarded straight to the casework teams and I got boilerplate responses from the caseworkers. That’s been my experience so far.
secret.simon wrote: ↑Thu Jul 24, 2025 5:58 pm
If you plan to go down that route, you will want to make it a policy issue wider than yourself that they would want to look at. And you need to make a case as to why *they* need to deal with it rather than pass it down the policy ladder. So they will be looking a a wide policy matter, not your application.
That’s tempting. I was thinking of writing a bold statement to ministers/MP and complaining why people like me are put in a "backlog" after nine months whilst others get response in 2-3 months, something like:
“This situation feels alarmingly similar to the Post Office scandal, where victims of IT failures ended up suffering most from poor administration. It’s unacceptable for the Home Office to have a policy that punishes applicants for its own mistakes.”
But legal advice I received said to stick to my own case if I actually want to get approval, not to make it a wider policy fight.
So now I’m stuck – I’m thinking about complaining to ministers about conflicting updates (“IT issue” vs “checks”, also “one particular check” → now “mandatory checks” (plural) + “backlog”). But my arguments would just be quoting what they’ve said to me, and I’m not sure it would make a difference.
Any thoughts welcome.
