Border Force

3. Ms Y complains Border Force failed to update its records, which led to her being detained when entering the UK in November 2021. She says she was detained for an outstanding NHS debt which she paid in 2019, even though she had given Border Force evidence of the payment.

4. Ms Y says the experience was unsettling. She says being detained in this way caused her extreme distress, anxiety and depression. She says it made her mental health condition worse.

5. Ms Y would like an apology.

6. Ms Y was detained by Border Force in 2019 after returning from abroad. This was due to a previous NHS debt which she had already cleared in 2019. She provided evidence that she had paid the debt and was then permitted entry.

7. On 9 November 2021, Ms Y was detained again for the same reason when she tried to return to the UK. She again provided evidence the debt had been cleared and was then permitted entry.

9. Before we decide if we should do a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the events complained about had a negative effect that the organisation has not put right. We have found that Border Force has done enough to put right the impact of the events on Ms Y.

10. In replying to Ms Y’s complaint, Border Force said it must do extra checks to make sure criteria for entry to the UK is met. Border Force said it was unable to comment on the nature of these checks because this information is not available to the general public. It apologised to Ms Y for the delays she experienced. It said it had examined her records and she should not be delayed when travelling in future. It could not say she would never be stopped and questioned by Border Force again, in the normal course of its duties.

11. Ms Y complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) about Border Force’s failure to update her records. Border Force sent us copies of its responses to Ms Y. Border Force said it had acted in line with the law in updating her records. It said it could not provide any further information about its processes to review or update records because this information is for internal use only. It also apologised for any upset caused at the time.

12. We asked Border Force about Ms Y’s records to confirm they had been updated. It told us it removed the entry on 10 December 2021, the month after Ms Y’s detention.

13. We consider Border Force could have updated Ms Y’s records in 2019 when it first detained her and that this would have likely meant she would not have been detained again in November 2021.

14. Our Principles for Remedy explain how organisations should put right injustice or hardship caused by maladministration (fault) or poor service. They say an apology and explanation may be a sufficient and appropriate response in many cases.

15. Ultimately, Border Force is required to do checks before allowing entry to the UK and has a right not to disclose its processes. In line with the Immigration Rules 2016, an outstanding debt to the NHS is grounds for refusal of entry to the UK. This is something Border Force staff would need to consider when deciding whether or not to grant entry at the UK border. While its complaint responses could have more clearly confirmed it had removed the entry from Ms Y’s records, we are satisfied it took appropriate action to correct her records the month after she was detained in November 2021. It also apologised for the upset caused after she complained to the ICO.

16. We understand it was distressing for Ms Y to have been stopped on entry to the UK. Particularly after a similar previous experience and after she had already given information to Border Force to avoid being detained. As Border Force has already offered an apology, we think it has done enough to put things right. Based on the steps we can see Border Force took to address Ms Y’s complaint, we do not consider there is any further action we need to take.

1. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has carefully considered Ms Y’s complaint about Border Force. We have decided Border Force has already done enough to put right what happened to Ms Y.

2. We have seen that Border Force wrongly detained Ms Y in November 2021 and this could have been avoided if it had updated its records in 2019. We know this was distressing for Ms Y and she feels strongly about her complaint. We are satisfied Border Force has since updated its records and apologised for the distress caused to Ms Y. We do not think it needs to do anything more to put things right.