Mr R instructed the service provider to apply for a working visa on his behalf.
However, Mr R’s visa application was rejected. He found out that this was because he was not eligible for the type of visa the service provider had applied for on his behalf. This meant he would need to apply for a different type of visa.
Mr R complained to the service provider, and asked for a full refund, as the work they had done for him had no value.
In his complaint to the service provider, Mr R said that it was clear from both the relevant rules and the rejection letter that the visa application would never have succeeded, as he did not meet the criteria.
Mr R also raised issues of delay and in respect of the service provider’s communication.
The service provider did not respond to Mr R’s complaint and so he escalated it to the Legal Ombudsman.
The complaint was reviewed on receipt but was not suitable for early resolution as the service provider had not responded to Mr R’s complaint.
The complaint was therefore passed for an in-depth investigation. Following an initial investigation, it became clear that Mr R was indeed ineligible for the visa the service provider had applied for, and so their advice was obviously incorrect.
The investigator informed the service provider that, given their advice was clearly incorrect, the application could not have succeeded, and the work completed held no value for Mr R. The service provider acknowledged this assessment and agreed to issue Mr C a full refund.
Mr R accepted the full refund, and the complaint was resolved by way of an agreed outcome.
As the service provider’s complaint handling was unreasonable, and their service was poor, a case fee of £400 was payable.
