A monthly column of examples from the files of the Legal Services Ombudsman

From the ombudsman's casebook this month are two examples of cases involving people from overseas who want to stay in the UK.

Firms taking on such clients need to be extra careful when providing a service in this area of practice, since the consequences for the client, should anything go wrong, can be particularly serious.

The man who wasn't there

D instructed A & Co to represent him in his appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.

D feared for his life should he be forced to return to his country of origin.

He had been involved in a liberation movement, members of which had been imprisoned and executed.

Two days before his appeal hearing, he telephoned the firm.

He was apparently told that he did not need to attend the hearing, so he did not.

Neither did anyone from the firm, and D's appeal was unsuccessful.

The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors (OSS) considered the matter, but decided that, in the absence of any evidence that D had in fact telephoned the firm, it could not pursue his complaint.

However, the ombudsman was not satisfied with this conclusion.

She found it difficult to understand why D did not attend the hearing, given its significance for him, unless he had been informed that he need not.

The ombudsman was not satisfied that the OSS investigation had been sufficiently rigorous and therefore recommended that it reconsider the matter.

When it did so, the OSS noted that the firm had failed to notify the court that it would not attend the hearing, and decided to investigate that matter too.

Departing from best practice

N arrived at Heathrow and was of the opinion that she was entitled to take up permanent residence in the UK.

However, she was mistaken and was in fact granted leave to enter the country for just three days, following which she was to present herself to board a 10am flight back to India.

N consulted M & Co, which contacted the immigration authorities to ask for an extension to her period of temporary admission.

However, although the authorities agreed to consider that request, the firm neglected to relay this news to N before she was expected to present herself at the airport.

The upshot was that she went to Heathrow as she had been told to do and was deported.

Following a complaint from N's brother, the OSS contacted the firm for an explanation and was told that N had made it clear that she had no intention of returning to India whatever happened; that being so, the firm had not seen the need to contact her urgently.

The OSS thought that response disposed of the matter but the ombudsman was not convinced.

Whatever N had told the firm about her intentions, the OSS had no evidence that she had ever been advised that she need not comply with the deportation order that had been made against her.

On the contrary, the firm had apparently made it plain to her that that order had been properly made.

In the ombudsman's view, by failing to advise N that her application to stay was under active consideration, the firm had rendered it inevitable that one of two unfortunate things would happen: either N would not attend for deportation and would be left thinking that she had put herself in clear breach of the law (which might well have been a source of anxiety to her, as it would to anyone); or she would comply with the order after all (which is what she actually did).

In the circumstances, the ombudsman recommended that the OSS reconsider.