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.