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

tanha_rixby wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 20, 2025 1:28 pm

contorted_svy wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 20, 2025 1:02 pm

Apologies, I may have gotten mixed up with another thread.

If you choose to reapply there is no guarantee that the application will be progressed faster. The checks requested will most likely be the same.

Thanks, so (statistically thinking) it is a much better choice to just wait for the current application and not reapply, no matter if it takes another year or so. (Pls correct me if I'm wrong).

zxyzhgp wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 20, 2025 1:14 pm

Maybe your long delay is due to the checks from your country of origin

Highly unlikely that the UK asks for information from the Iranian govt.

An immigration advisor suggested that the UK govt has started to do more deep checks on people from some nationalities, including Iran. He said that the number of officers/caseworkers who are on that particular office doing those checks do not match the workload.
Considering that other Iranians are getting their response in 2-3 months, I assume the check is only done on SOME applicants.
The big question is if the check is done on A: random APPLICANTS OR B: random APPLICATIONS.
If A --> I will be checked even if I reapply.
If B --> I might not be checked if I reaply.

I'll just wait for now.

I have some Iranian friends and they all got citizenship very quick a few years ago

zxyzhgp wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 20, 2025 1:37 pm

I have some Iranian friends and they all got citizenship very quick a few years ago

Same for most of my Iranian friends. But the unlucky of us (that I am aware of) are waiting 1y, 1.5y, and 6.5 years.

contorted_svy wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 20, 2025 1:34 pm

I can't comment on your chances, just that I don't think rolling the dice again will necessarily give you a quicker outcome, at the same time there are no guarantees on how long you could be kept waiting with your current application.

Got it, thanks for your advice. I guess I'll just wait for another couple of months, perhaps reach out to the caseworkers again, and if the message is the same, might re-apply.

zxyzhgp wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 20, 2025 1:37 pm

Have you mentioned in your application or communications with the HO/MP that you had job offers that were rescinded on the grounds of you not having British citizenship?

Yes, several times. I got template response suggesting that while the enquiries are ongoing, they cannot make a decisoin.

They caseworkers once mentioned in a reply to IEC that:
"UKVI will 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"

That was mid-July, and they confirmed nothing is received yet (mid-October), which basically suggests they can ask for it, but the other agency doesn't priorotise me in the backlog anyways!

Quick follow-up to my post above: I'm thinking of buying a house, but I'm worried a change of address will restart the checks. Given how long I've already waited, do you think it's too risky?

If you want to buy a house, then do it. You can communicate the change of address later. Buying a house is not a quick process, if you are still waiting when it's time to move you can reassess at that point, as you mentioned you are pondering to reapply/

@tanha_rixby Someone had their application approved after 2 years and 4 months — seems they only made complaints, not an ombudsman referral. Just to put things in perspective, it’s worth noting.

gingerbread777 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 28, 2025 6:09 pm

@tanha_rixby Someone had their application approved after 2 years and 4 months — seems they only made complaints, not an ombudsman referral. Just to put things in perspective, it’s worth noting.

Thanks for the perspective, do you have any info about his nationality and what the underlying issue was for the delay? Did he complain right after the 6 months point, or after 2 years?

tanha_rixby wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 29, 2025 7:05 pm

gingerbread777 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 28, 2025 6:09 pm

@tanha_rixby Someone had their application approved after 2 years and 4 months — seems they only made complaints, not an ombudsman referral. Just to put things in perspective, it’s worth noting.

Thanks for the perspective, do you have any info about his nationality and what the underlying issue was for the delay? Did he complain right after the 6 months point, or after 2 years?

This is the thread being referred to record-for-longest-time-waited-to-reach ... 55107.html

tanha_rixby wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 20, 2025 12:19 pm

I have already lost principal job offers that specifically required citizenship, and it's pointless to apply for more while I'm awaiting the result.

I'm intrigued by this statement and wonder if that has a role to play in the delay.

To the best of my knowledge, the only jobs that require British citizenship are those in the security and diplomatic services. And some of those even require both parents to also hold British citizenship.

But otherwise, almost no jobs in the UK require British citizenship as a pre-condition. Even a non-British citizen who has Commonwealth citizenship and ILR can be elected MP or be appointed to the Lords, and they can be appointed ministers or even the Prime Minister. In theory, British citizenship is not a requirement for even the head of government. Within the UK, having ILR (which you already have) is more than sufficient for most purposes and almost all jobs.

So I wonder what kind of job offers have you received and if the job offers (assuming they are from the security or diplomatic services) may have triggered any additional vetting of your application.

secret.simon wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 01, 2025 7:30 am

I'm intrigued by this statement and wonder if that has a role to play in the delay.

To the best of my knowledge, the only jobs that require British citizenship are those in the security and diplomatic services. And some of those even require both parents to also hold British citizenship.

But otherwise, almost no jobs in the UK require British citizenship as a pre-condition. Even a non-British citizen who has Commonwealth citizenship and ILR can be elected MP or be appointed to the Lords, and they can be appointed ministers or even the Prime Minister. In theory, British citizenship is not a requirement for even the head of government. Within the UK, having ILR (which you already have) is more than sufficient for most purposes and almost all jobs.

So I wonder what kind of job offers have you received and if the job offers (assuming they are from the security or diplomatic services) may have triggered any additional vetting of your application.

It was a major technology firm that provides IT infrastructure for government departments. But it’s unlikely that this has triggered the check because the caseworker insists the remaining check was requested on the very same date that I did my biometric appointment. I applied for that job one day after my biometric appointment, so that job application can’t be the reason for the check. I was interviewing for a couple of months and the offer came some time later.

My biometric was done on the same week that I didn’t my application, so I guess it’s one of the checks that were auto-triggered by the system. The check’s name is very vague (‘resolve identity’) and the caseworker suggested that I won’t find much in the SAR.

I once did get a US visa but didn’t travel, but again, that is unlikely to be the reason because I can see in the SAR that the check from the international partner (US) was returned the same day.

I was thinking: could it be the case that they contacted my employer regarding character?

I provided a reference letter from employer (as a supplement to passport scans, to show we extra proof of residence just in case the caseworker can't find stamps in my passports), but I changed my job shortly after the application. I don't know if my previous company could be that "external agency"?
It's a big IT company and things could have got lost there. Just an speculation

I don't think this delay has something to do with employment. Having a job is not a requirement for naturalisation, even unemployed people get naturalised. I also believe the job history of the applicant is irrelevant.

secret.simon wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 01, 2025 7:30 am

To the best of my knowledge, the only jobs that require British citizenship are those in the security and diplomatic services. And some of those even require both parents to also hold British citizenship.

But otherwise, almost no jobs in the UK require British citizenship as a pre-condition.

Not only defence or diplomacy, there are some other strategic industries in the UK that require British citizenship for some "key" positions.

I applied for a job in the nuclear sector before getting citizenship and the hiring manager contacted me asking if I was a British citizen. I only had ILR at the time and for that reason my application was rejected. I did apply because the JD didn't specify that British citizenship was required, otherwise I wouldn't apply for a job reserved for BCs before being naturalised. The organisation later readvertised the job with that requirement.

Note a letter from an employer is only used for confirming residency, by way of disclosing dates of employment, not for a reference.
Referee declarations are to support the "Good Character" requirement, however it is very rare that either referees or employers are contacted by UKVI.

lolo2 wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 03, 2025 9:23 am

Not only defence or diplomacy, there are some other strategic industries in the UK that require British citizenship for some "key" positions.

I applied for a job in the nuclear sector before getting citizenship and the hiring manager contacted me asking if I was a British citizen. I only had ILR at the time and for that reason my application was rejected. I did apply because the JD didn't specify that British citizenship was required, otherwise I wouldn't apply for a job reserved for BCs before being naturalised. The organisation later readvertised the job with that requirement.

Perhaps I should have phrased it as "jobs with major national security requirements" or something on those lines, but your example underscores my point Thank you.

Hi all, I'm looking for advice on a new approach.

My caseworker has written to me multiple times that the entire delay is one single check, pending since October 2024. She is basically saying "it's an external agency, it's out of my hands, all your escalations (MP, Minister, PM) just come back to me, please stop sending correspondence here and there.”

I'm in a total loop. The problem isn't her; it's that the external agency is taking over a year, which must be a resource/backlog issue that only senior officials can fix.

My new idea: I want to send another complaint (or a letter to the Home Secretary or Permanent Secretary), but this time, I will state clearly it is NOT about my application delay or the caseworkers. I want to complain about the HO's escalation process and policy failure.

My argument would be: 'My complaint isn't with my caseworker, it's with senior management for creating a system where external agencies aren't held accountable (perhaps under-resourced) and all escalation paths to raise this to senior officials are just a loop back to the powerless caseworker.'

I was thinking of linking it to the recent news about the new Home Sec wanting to "fix" the Home Office's "responsibility vacuum."

My big question and worry is: Will this actually work? How do I stop this letter/complaint from just being auto-forwarded? The complaints team will just see my UAN and send it straight to my caseworker again, which will just annoy her. She's already told me all correspondence comes to her.

Is this a stupid idea? Or has anyone found a way to actually get a senior civil servant to look at a systemic issue?

Thanks.

We unfortunately don't know how to avoid things being auto-forwarded or if sending more emails would frustrate the caseworker. We also don't know if this conversation would on any way expedite your application. Trying is free I suppose, I don't personally recall any reports of anyone trying this and/or being successful in the last couple of years.

My response will come across as callous and harsh, but I think I'm being factual and dispassionate.

Look at it from a Home Office civil servant's point of view. They receive hundreds, possibly thousands of citizenship applications every month. The vast majority (90%+) are dealt with satisfactorily within the six month self-imposed deadline.

Of the handful that exceed six months, there are some, like yours, that are stuck with an external agency that they have no oversight of and no responsibility for.

From their point of view, it's not their problem. Worse, it's is nobody's problem but yours.

From their point of view, they don't see any urgency of you getting British citizenship. Others have, and you can, live decades in the UK on ILR. British citizenship is not a necessity to live in the UK, from their point of view. It's a lovely add-on, not a necessity.

So the question for you is, how do you chase something which is nobody's problem but yours? How does it negatively impact the Home Office if one person's naturalisation application is delayed because of an external agency check, when hundreds, if not thousands, have received naturalisation successfully in that timeframe?

Also, "systemic failure" may be a bit overblown. One edge case out of thousands of applications does not a systemic failure make.

secret.simon wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 14, 2025 7:04 pm

My response will come across as callous and harsh, but I think I'm being factual and dispassionate.

Look at it from a Home Office civil servant's point of view. They receive hundreds, possibly thousands of citizenship applications every month. The vast majority (90%+) are dealt with satisfactorily within the six month self-imposed deadline.

Of the handful that exceed six months, there are some, like yours, that are stuck with an external agency that they have no oversight of and no responsibility for.

From their point of view, it's not their problem. Worse, it's is nobody's problem but yours.

From their point of view, they don't see any urgency of you getting British citizenship. Others have, and you can, live decades in the UK on ILR. British citizenship is not a necessity to live in the UK, from their point of view. It's a lovely add-on, not a necessity.

So the question for you is, how do you chase something which is nobody's problem but yours? How does it negatively impact the Home Office if one person's naturalisation application is delayed because of an external agency check, when hundreds, if not thousands, have received naturalisation successfully in that timeframe?

Also, "systemic failure" may be a bit overblown. One edge case out of thousands of applications does not a systemic failure make.

Thanks @secret.simon, that's a very helpful dose of reality. I wanted exactly this kind of feedback on how the system thinks.

On your point about citizenship being a "lovely add-on" – I'm not sure I agree, especially not in 2025. With parties like Reform UK projected to do well and openly talking about scrapping ILR (even retrospectively), citizenship feels less like an 'add-on' and more like basic security. It’s hard to plan a life here (buy a house, etc.) with that level of uncertainty.

And on it being an "edge case" – I'm not so sure. I personally know other Iranians waiting 2, even 7 years. We've even noticed the same caseworker name on our letters. It feels less like a random one-off, and more like a specific, broken check for a specific cohort. (My suspicion: a few caseworkers have a specific check they run on people from certain nationalities, and the external agency doing it is badly under-resourced).

I agree the caseworker can't do anything. But the 'external agency' is still part of the UK government (e.g. MI5) or an ally (like FBI). My argument is that a 400-day wait for one check isn't a 'process', it's a high-level policy failure (i.e., they've failed to properly resource that specific agency/check).

This brings me back to my main questions:

1. Given this, does this "policy failure" angle still seem like a total waste of time? I know I'm in uncharted territory, but the alternative is to just give up and wait for years. I'd rather at least try. Do you have any alternative suggestion?

2. What's the actual risk? If I do this and it just annoys the caseworker (who has already told me that communicating with others has no effect = politely saying "please stop"), what's the worst that can happen? Can they genuinely "make life miserable" in an indirect way, or am I just being paranoid?

I'm really just asking for your opinion on the risk vs. reward of trying this one last angle. Thanks.

tanha_rixby wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 15, 2025 12:30 am

on it being an "edge case" – I'm not so sure. I personally know other Iranians waiting 2, even 7 years. We've even noticed the same caseworker name on our letters. It feels less like a random one-off, and more like a specific, broken check for a specific cohort. (My suspicion: a few caseworkers have a specific check they run on people from certain nationalities, and the external agency doing it is badly under-resourced).

I am inclined to suggest that you look further in this aspect.

There are two possibilities that suggest themselves to me.

It is possible that there is internal Home Office guidance/procedures that require certain further checks to be triggered if certain conditions are met. In the past, the PDF guidance notes used to have certain sections redacted as being officially sensitive and thus not open/accessible to the public. It is possible that your case and those of other Iranians may fall into that category. That is to say that the caseworkers dealing with your applications may be following internal procedures/guidance that we're unaware of.

The alternative, which I think you have in mind, is that there's a bunch of caseworkers who are being discriminatory based on nationality/ethnicity. If you feel that is the case, I can imagine that you could make a complaint on that basis, along with providing the details of the other applicants who have been impacted in the same way. You'd of course need their consent to go down this route. And I can't imagine that would make you popular in the Home Office. But that is a route you may want to reflect on, along with your other friends similarly impacted.

I am inclined to think that the first option is the more likely one, of an unknown guidance that the caseworkers are following. They are called bureaucrats for a reason.

tanha_rixby wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 15, 2025 12:30 am

The 'external agency' is still part of the UK government (e.g. MI5) or an ally (like FBI). My argument is that a 400-day wait for one check isn't a 'process', it's a high-level policy failure (i.e., they've failed to properly resource that specific agency/check).

Either ways, neither MI5 nor dealing with the FBI or other international agencies is the role of the Home Office or Home Secretary. The relationships of those agencies with the Home Office will be regulated by arrangements and I doubt the Home Office will want to jeopardise those working arrangements for one or a few naturalisation cases, the speedy process of which the Home Office gains nothing, but chasing which may damage those working arrangements.

Essentially there is no benefit in chasing those agencies for the Home Office. And they may lose good working relationships for no benefit to them.

tanha_rixby wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 15, 2025 12:30 am

What's the actual risk? If I do this and it just annoys the caseworker (who has already told me that communicating with others has no effect = politely saying "please stop"), what's the worst that can happen? Can they genuinely "make life miserable" in an indirect way, or am I just being paranoid?

I don't think there's any risk, but only because I don't think there's any reward either.

The Home Office is unlikely to upset any apple carts over one or a few cases. So I doubt that anything, either positive or negative, will occur following your complaint.

I don't see any harm in trying, but I would set your expectations at nothing happening or improving too.

If this was my appplication, I would

1. Chill out and act a bit less entitled

2. Present my case in terms of contributions to the British society - that’s the new buzzword at HO.

3. You can definitely make a humanitarian plea regarding ILR status being likely to be removed by the next expected government

4. If I was Iranian and had any connections to the mullah regime, I would explain that in detail. maybe add character references from British friends or employers, about my contributions and assuaging any fear that I might be a spy

Happy New Year everyone.

Over the break I tried to work out what (if anything) is a reasonable next move. As of now, the enquiry from the external agency blocking my application has been pending for over 14 months. Considering friends of mine in the same situation who applied much earlier, it's pretty clear that the agency simply does not have the staff to clear the pile anytime soon.

There is currently a House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee inquiry into "Settlement, Citizenship and Integration" accepting written evidence until **23 Jan**.

Here are the questions they are interested in: https://committees.parliament.uk/call-f ... ence/3795/

I am seriously considering submitting written evidence. To be clear, this wouldn't be a "complaint" about my specific delay (which I know they can't fix), but a case study on how the current process actively penalizes the "high value / highly contributing" applicants the government claims to want.

I’m thinking of submitting evidence based on these core points:

• The "Success Penalty": The current system disproportionately creates indefinite delays for applicants with "heavier" CVs (STEM PhDs, higher tax brackets, global careers). These attributes trigger external checks that simpler applications don't. The result is that the "best contributors" face the longest delays.
• The "Caretaker" Loophole: My own correspondence with senior caseworkers confirms that the HO views itself as a mere "caretaker" for external checks. They admit they have no power to expedite, no visibility, and no SLA with the external agencies.
• Normalization of Extreme Delays: I want to highlight that delays of 12+ months (or even years, based on timelines I've seen here) are treated as "standard procedure" as long as the delay is external.
• The Danger of New Laws: If the government introduces more eligibility checks without introducing statutory SLAs or accountability for external partners, this backlog will explode.
• Resource Allocation: It appears there is zero interest in coordinating resources to clear these backlogs; it looks like a result of austerity measures biting future investment.

I want to ask for advice on two things:

1. Is this a reasonable move? Or is this "too much noise" that could backfire? My goal is to pressure the HO to negotiate a protocol for clearing these stalled cases, but I don't want to torch my own application.
2. Citing Data: Is it legally/ethically okay to cite timelines from this forum in a parliamentary submission? For example, I've seen a user who waited from 2015 to 2024. Is it ok to cite it as a fact that such delays exist.

Any thoughts are welcome. Also, a big thank you to everyone who’s been generous with advice in 2025, especially @secret.simon, @contorted_svy, @alterhase58, @lolo2 and @mmicky5050. I really appreciate it.

I can't comment on the citing data issue - you may need consent of the admins to do that. You do make some reference to applicant's backgrounds / careers and how that affects timelines, do make sure that the examples you offer have some context to that effect, to validate your claim you need something as close to to a pattern as possible rather than a few anecdotes.


I will say though, that the HO can't, legally, retaliate on you for raising these issues. Will they, is another question, but I suspect the ramifications of their actions would be unappealing, even if they were so inclined.

I am answering only on two of your points.

The "Success Penalty": The current system disproportionately creates indefinite delays for applicants with "heavier" CVs (STEM PhDs, higher tax brackets, global careers). These attributes trigger external checks that simpler applications don't. The result is that the "best contributors" face the longest delays.

Is this your opinion?? It is not correct by the way and no idea how you have deduced this at all. I know many in your narrow definition who have obtained citizenship within the SLA timeframe, myself included.

2. Citing Data: Is it legally/ethically okay to cite timelines from this forum in a parliamentary submission? For example, I've seen a user who waited from 2015 to 2024. Is it ok to cite it as a fact that such delays exist.

Have never seen the "2015 to 2024" case for a citizenship application on the forum you are referring to. You also cannot use any information posted on this forum as 'FACT' as none of it can be verified, all users are anonymous and many genuine users and spam post users post incorrect information to get clicks/responses or are posting as third or fourth party people or agents etc. Also remember, the forum is based in Latvia, owned and hosted by an external immigration consultancy firm. Also important to note that the percentage of statistics posted on the forum is only a fraction of all submitted applications etc.

There is so much to unpack in your latest post that I may have to do it over multiple posts and at different times.

tanha_rixby wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 06, 2026 6:58 pm

There is currently a House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee inquiry into "Settlement, Citizenship and Integration" accepting written evidence until **23 Jan**.

Here are the questions they are interested in: https://committees.parliament.uk/call-f ... ence/3795/

I am seriously considering submitting written evidence.

I would highly recommend it. You are engaging with the democratic and political processes as you should, which can only help inform people and hopefully also government processes and policies.

Let's start by setting expectations though. Your evidence will be considered by some people (possibly members of the House of Lords, but more likely the committee staff will summarise it for them), who will put together a report, which the government will then consider and could reject or refute. It puts me in mind of the quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln of something being a "homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had been starved to death". The effect of the report is likely to be marginal, if any at all.

But on the other hand this is a mechanism for the public, especially those most affected, to influence the minds of those in power, even though in case of the Lords, at the very periphery of power.

tanha_rixby wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 06, 2026 6:58 pm

I've seen a user who waited from 2015 to 2024.

I am deeply intrigued about this case and I would appreciate it if you can post a link to it.

My guess is that one of two things may have occurred.

The less likely is that you may have conflated the person's entire immigration history into just their naturalisation application period.

Another more likely possibility is that you may have conflated the person's post-ILR period as the period of their naturalisation application. If that is the case, keep in mind that (a) there is no requirement or compulsion for people to apply for British citizenship after ILR at all and (b) some people choose not to apply for British citizenship intentionally because of legal reasons in their country of origin and they may do it years after their ILR. So do not assume that the gap between their ILR and naturalisation application is solely because of delays at the Home Office.

tanha_rixby wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 06, 2026 6:58 pm

The Danger of New Laws: If the government introduces more eligibility checks without introducing statutory SLAs or accountability for external partners, this backlog will explode.

I am very chary of the idea of imposing any form of SLAs, let alone statutory SLAs.

I will start by pointing out that the UK's six month target for processing naturalisation is one of the fastest in Europe. Some countries, such as in Scandinavia, tend to average 2-3 years for a naturalisation application. So I am thankful that the average speed of the Home Office in processing naturalisation applications is quite fast compared to other countries within Europe itself.

Secondly, such a proposal must necessarily fail. Citizenship of course gives you rights, but it also necessarily also binds governments and nations, even at an international level (to an extent that is what passports are for). It is not merely a domestic immigration status (such as ILR). Granting citizenship is therefore something that should be scrutinised thoroughly, no matter how long it takes.

I will also remind you that the lack of British citizenship does not affect the applicant's life within the UK at all. A person on ILR has almost the same rights within the UK as a British citizen, including voting and even being elected as an MP if they are Commonwealth citizens. Even children born to them in the UK are British citizens automatically. Therefore the lack of British citizenship does not hamper the life of an applicant for naturalisation, given that they will already have ILR at the time (a requirement for naturalisation).

I will respond to other points later, but I look forward to the link for the 2015-2024 case as I am intrigued by it.

EDIT: Years ago I had read an academic paper from a pan-European academic institute comparing naturalisation processes and periods across Europe. At the time the UK was in the EU and was included in the comparison. From memory, the UK and Spain were the fastest in their naturalisation processes, while other countries took years for their naturalisation processes to complete.

I can't recall the name of the institute nor can I find the paper that I have in mind. But here are some documents for you to read through in case you are thus inclined.

How to Become an EU Citizen: The Acquisition of Citizenship via Naturalization

Full membership or equal rights? The link between naturalisation and integration policies for immigrants in 29 European state (very technical and boring, useful for when you have insomnia)

Legal Residence and Physical Presence: The Law and Practice of Naturalization in EU Jurisdiction (may not be relevant to your case)

FURTHER EDIT: Found the document that I had in mind.

Naturalisation Policies in Europe: Exploring Patterns of Inclusion and Exclusion

You may want to read from Page 21 onwards about the periods of processing of naturalisation applications, though the whole document is worth a read. Note that the document is from 2010, so almost certainly out of date. Almost a different era in terms of immigration concerns. And the past is a foreign country.

Firstly, thank you all for your comments and wisdom. I am already thinking of updating some angles in case I decide to submit.

Regarding that 2015 submission, the link is here: viewtopic.php?t=80616&start=14125#p2131071
It was from 2015 to 2023, and the duration included rebuttal and stuff. Apologies, that I did not notice that, as I relied on my auto-generated Excel sheet without reading the textual comment in that post:


* Disclaimer: the timeline was parsed by the help of LLM, so there could be errors.

Out of the 2500 latest application timelines in the forum that I auto-processed in August, the longest are:
- 32 months
- 27 months
- 27 months
- 27 months, Details
- …

Regarding the comments:

contorted_svy wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 06, 2026 7:12 pm

I will say though, that the HO can't, legally, retaliate on you for raising these issues. Will they, is another question, but I suspect the ramifications of their actions would be unappealing, even if they were so inclined.

That's my main concern here, more important than anything. I don't want this submission to negatively impact the decision or the delay. I’d really appreciate it if others could also give their opinion regarding indirect retaliation by the HO. They will be able to find me even if I redact part of the caseworker notes (e.g. letter from the caseworker that confirms that the checks are pending since 2024, and that there is a backlog of enquiries to that agency), which I will provide as part of the evidence.

CR001 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 06, 2026 7:15 pm

I am answering only on two of your points.

The "Success Penalty": The current system disproportionately creates indefinite delays for applicants with "heavier" CVs (STEM PhDs, higher tax brackets, global careers). These attributes trigger external checks that simpler applications don't. The result is that the "best contributors" face the longest delays.

Is this your opinion?? It is not correct by the way and no idea how you have deduced this at all. I know many in your narrow definition who have obtained citizenship within the SLA timeframe, myself included.

Fair point. I definitely don't mean that ALL high-value applicants get delayed, I am saying that those who are severely delayed are more likely to be higher-value applicants with complex backgrounds (even if they are a minority). Rather, my point is about correlation: the attributes that trigger complex external checks (having assets, international travel history, dual nationality, work in high-tech sectors) often overlap significantly with the profile of the talents the UK tries to attract. The UK should not disappoint those applicants with severe delays simply because they don’t have enough funding/staff in their agencies. A low-skilled worker who has never left the UK is simply less likely to trigger a complex foreign enquiry than a researcher attending conferences globally. But I agree I cannot strictly "prove" this pattern with data, so I might refine this argument to focus on the *impact* of the delay on these careers rather than the *frequency*. Perhaps I can also argue that the caseworker letter admitting that there is a backlog of cases that require consideration by that agency, proves the point that a significant number of applicants are affected by this multi-year backlog.

CR001 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 06, 2026 7:15 pm

...Also remember, the forum is based in Latvia, owned and hosted by an external immigration consultancy firm. Also important to note that the percentage of statistics posted on the forum is only a fraction of all submitted applications etc.

Thanks for the info. Yes, that's indeed the case: the timeline in this forum is a small percentage of all applications. For the same reason (that it’s a small sample), it may not have examples of the minority of cases with severe delays. I personally know someone waiting 7 years, 2 years, etc., but I obviously cannot cite them in the submission as they are not willing to go public.
Ok then, I will likely avoid citing forum data as primary evidence and rely on arguing based on my own caseworker responses and publicly available reports (ICIBI etc).

secret.simon wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 07, 2026 3:03 am

...
I am very chary of the idea of imposing any form of SLAs, let alone statutory SLAs.

I will also remind you that the lack of British citizenship does not affect the applicant's life within the UK at all. A person on ILR has almost the same rights within the UK as a British citizen, including voting and even being elected as an MP if they are Commonwealth citizens. Even children born to them in the UK are British citizens automatically. Therefore the lack of British citizenship does not hamper the life of an applicant for naturalisation, given that they will already have ILR at the time (a requirement for naturalisation).

Thanks for the detailed comment. Just to give some context, I’ve been reading the transcripts of the oral evidence given to this Committee so far, and they seem specifically concerned with a few key themes:
- Integration & Certainty: Baroness Hughes and Lord Tope were asking pointed questions about how "security of residence" drives integration -> I guess “certainty” is affected by severe delays and threat of Reform UK rescinding ILRs.
- Economic Contribution: Lord Filkin and Professor Joppke emphasized "work" and economic value as the primary drivers of integration.
- System Opacity: Witnesses like Zoe Bantleman discussed how the system is opaque and unaccountable: -> This is the angle I want to exploit the most.

My argument is not necessarily to impose a strict SLA on the *check itself* (if a check takes time, it takes time), but to hold the Home Office responsible as the "caretaker" of the application.

Think of it like Section 75 protection for credit cards: If you are scammed by a seller, the claim can be made against the card provider, not just the seller. The provider can’t shrug and say “it is no one's problem but yours”. I want legislation to set a legal duty for the HO to chase the application progress even when it's pending externally, and to be accountable for resolving staffing bottlenecks at the government level. Currently, the government feels no responsibility to fund these agencies adequately, and that’s what I want the legislation to address.

secret.simon wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 07, 2026 3:03 am

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.

(Also, just a minor correction: you cannot vote in General Elections with ILR unless you are a citizen of certain nations).

Thanks again for the links and advice, I will have a read. Can't wait for the rest of the things you want to say

Sorry if that came across as self-important. I am trying to convince the law-maker that the current policies are defeating their purpose, not argue for my specific case.

We can't read in the HO's minds, but if they retaliated that would be extremely unethical of them. These consultations are meant to be public, and we all have something to lose to question the govt. I understand your concern, but they could literally do whatever they want with your (or anyone's) application and we would be at their complete mercy. They can only reject applications based on statutory requirements, and what you are planning to do doesn't violate them.