Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration finds some improvements since previous inspection, but fundamental issues remain
The latest inspection report by David Bolt, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI), was published last week. It examines the Home Office's management of fee waiver applications.
The detailed 114-page report can be downloaded here.
As the report notes, fee waivers serve as a crucial safeguard for individuals who cannot afford the costs associated with applications to enter or remain in the UK, as well as for children applying for British citizenship. Concerns have been raised about the high cost of Home Office fees, the Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS), and additional expenses such as solicitors' fees and biometric enrolment.
The report examines three types of fee waivers where the Home Secretary or an official exercises discretion over whether an applicant must pay: in-country human rights applications where requiring payment would breach rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); child citizenship applications where the fee is unaffordable; and overseas human rights-based applications under Article 8 of the ECHR.
Overall, the report finds that that while some improvements have been made with the Home Office's management of these fee waiver applications since the ICIBI's previous inspection in 2019, fundamental issues remain. Processing times are often too long, quality assurance is inconsistent, safeguarding measures need strengthening, and communication with applicants and stakeholders is inadequate.
David Bolt highlighted that many of the core issues identified—such as staff shortages, inadequate training, poor record-keeping, delays in decision-making, backlog management, siloed working, and weak communication—extend far beyond the fee waiver processes and are largely systemic and long-standing in the Home Office.
Among the problems identified with fee waivers in its latest inspection, the ICIBI found the Home Office's two-tier quality assurance regime was ineffective in ensuring consistent decision quality. A review by the ICIBI of 72 in-country and 48 child citizenship fee waiver decisions found nearly half contained errors, ranging from minor grammatical mistakes to serious miscommunications, such as wrongly informing applicants they were liable for removal. Additionally, no routine quality assurance had been conducted on overseas fee waiver decisions since 2022, prompting concerns about oversight.
The report states: "[T]he lack of attention to detail and evident failure of caseworkers, in particular those dealing with in-country applications, to proof-read and correct their work argue for a more intrusive approach by line management to setting expectations and reinforcing standards, underpinned by a more intensive and rigorous quality assurance regime both for new and experienced caseworkers. For this to be effective, it is important for managers to challenge the notion that some errors, such as misspellings or grammatical errors, are merely administrative and can be accepted, since this will undermine efforts to improve quality."
Each of the three fee waiver teams has its own guidance document, published on GOV.UK with some redactions, but there was little coordination in their development, leading to inconsistencies in key areas like affordability assessments. In September 2024, the in-country guidance was updated to streamline content, introduce new financial assessment rules, and change terminology, but some important details—such as references to victims of trafficking—were quietly removed. Updates to child citizenship and overseas guidance have been slower, with further revisions planned but not yet scheduled. Despite these documents being available, caseworkers often found them difficult to use, preferring to seek informal advice from colleagues, which sometimes led to inconsistencies. Additionally, none of the guidance documents provided clarity on how to void or withdraw fee waiver applications, leaving a gap in procedural knowledge.
ICIBI inspectors also highlighted inconsistent and often prolonged processing times for fee waiver applications, particularly for in-country applicants. Unlike overseas and child citizenship fee waivers, which saw some fluctuations but remained within a broadly similar timeframe, in-country fee waivers experienced a significant backlog, peaking at an average of 168 days in June 2024 before declining to 69 days in September 2024. Despite this improvement, in-country applications continued to face much longer processing times compared to other categories. The lack of a service level agreement (SLA) meant there was no clear benchmark for decision-making timeframes, leading to widespread concerns among applicants and stakeholders about delays and uncertainty.
Stakeholders expressed frustration over the prolonged waiting periods, particularly for in-country applicants reliant on timely decisions to confirm their UK residency and work rights while on Section 3C leave. Support organisations struggled to provide adequate guidance due to unpredictable timelines and delayed requests for further information, which often left applicants with little time to respond. Additionally, almost 90% of fee waiver-related complaints submitted to the Home Office cited delays, but in the absence of an SLA, responses were largely limited to stating current wait times.
The backlog of in-country applications, which make up the majority of the Home Office's fee waiver workload, rose to nearly 34,000 by June 2024. However, the deployment of additional staff helped reduce it to 12,500 by September 2024—a reduction the ICIBI described as a major achievement. Despite this progress, projections indicate that application numbers will continue to rise, leaving the core staff too small to manage intake effectively and prevent future backlogs.
Further compounding issues with delays, the fee waiver 'token' system used by the Home Office was flawed. Senior managers said there was a design fault with the system, as tokens are generated and emailed to applicants at the start of the application process rather than upon approval. This led to confusion about their validity and an influx of queries to the 'token issues inbox,' which at one point held 900 unresolved cases. While the inbox was a positive step in addressing applicants' concerns, it underscored systemic inefficiencies in the fee waiver process.
With general regard to communication and engagement, the report notes that before September 2023, applicants and stakeholders had no formal way to track the progress of fee waiver applications, a situation that remains unchanged for in-country and overseas applicants. As a result, some stakeholders resorted to contacting the Home Office through informal channels, such as using email addresses they had collected from past interactions, in an attempt to get a response. This lack of structured communication has created frustration and uncertainty for applicants seeking updates on their cases.
The only official stakeholder engagement takes place through meetings between the in-country fee waiver team and organisations like the Immigration Law Practitioners Association (ILPA) and the No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) stakeholder forum. However, there are no equivalent engagement mechanisms for child citizenship and overseas fee waiver applications, leaving those applicants with limited avenues for raising concerns or seeking assistance. While some in-country caseworkers proactively reach out to applicants to resolve specific issues, stakeholders have suggested that a dedicated phone line or email address would significantly improve communication and transparency.
Data protection concerns were raised by the ICIBI over the Home Office's handling of personal and financial information in fee waiver applications. Inspectors found that Equifax credit reference reports, which are used by all three fee waiver teams, contain third-party data unrelated to the applicant, such as names of individuals linked to an address. The Home Office admitted it had no lawful basis to process this information. Additionally, sensitive personal data, including financial records and medical evidence, was being stored for indeterminate periods on Home Office systems, with some records retained for more than seven months after a decision was made. The Home Office was unable to justify this retention, which breaches its own data policies and the Data Protection Act 2018.
Eight recommendations are made in the report to improve the processing of fee waiver applications. It calls for better workforce planning to ensure there are enough trained staff to handle in-country applications and prevent backlogs. It also suggests formal quarterly meetings between fee waiver teams to share best practices and manage risks. To improve quality, the report recommends a stricter scoring system for caseworkers, focusing on accuracy in both decision-making and written communication. Additionally, it advises clearer roles and responsibilities for those overseeing caseworkers to ensure consistent standards and support.
The report also highlights the need for legal clarity on how Equifax reports are stored, particularly regarding third-party data. It stresses that major changes to fee waiver policies should be assessed for their impact on equality and discrimination risks. To enhance efficiency, the report proposes setting service level agreements (SLAs) for child citizenship and overseas fee waivers from April 2025, with in-country SLAs introduced once backlogs are under control. Finally, it recommends developing a strategy to improve engagement with external stakeholders across all fee waiver categories.
David Bolt added: "None of these recommendations should be controversial, and all of them are achievable. The need for each is evidenced in this inspection and they relate directly to the management of fee waiver applications. However, the underlying issues – shortages of trained and experienced staff, problems with record-keeping and with the quality and timeliness of decisions, the management of backlogs, silo working, and poor communication and engagement – go much wider, as previous inspections have shown. I am therefore looking to the Home Office to reflect on these recommendations and to adapt and implement them wherever else within the Migration and Borders System they are relevant."
The Home Office's official response to the ICIBI's report is available here. Five recommendations were fully accepted and three were partially accepted.