Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

4. Mr I was assaulted while abroad, resulting in serious injuries. He complains about the handling of his case by the FCDO between January and July 2024. In particular, he complains the FCDO:

• inappropriately classified the incident as a ‘civil personal dispute’ instead of criminal assault on 15 January 2024 • misinterpreted Mr I’s request for confirmation of the FCDO’s continued support as a request to cease all communication with the overseas authorities regarding his case in July 2024.

5. As a result, Mr I says he has suffered emotional and psychological distress and financial loss. He says the incorrect classification of the matter caused delays in him receiving justice and he feels unsupported and incredibly frustrated. The misinterpretation of his request for support has compounded his distress. He tells us the delays in resolving the matter have caused depression and anxiety and a breakdown of his marriage.

6. Mr I is seeking an apology, explanation, service improvements and financial remedy.

7. On 20 April 2023, Mr I was physically attacked while abroad. He reported the incident shortly after it occurred to the local police and the FCDO.

8. On 15 January 2024, Mr I’s case was referred to as a ‘civil personal dispute’ in a formal note issued by the British Consulate General (BCG) to the relevant local authority.

9. Internal FCDO correspondence on 2 July indicates Mr I requested that the FCDO cease all communications with the local authorities about his case.

10. On 4 July, the FCDO’s Vice Consul wrote to Mr I stating the consular team agreed to continue making enquiries on Mr I’s behalf and asked him to contact her if he wanted the team to make a new enquiry with the local authorities.

11. On 12 July, Mr I gave his consent for staff to continue making official enquiries with the local authorities about his case and, as a result, on 17 July the BCG sent another formal note to the authorities requesting an update on his case.

12. On 25 November, the local authorities responded to the note and provided an update on the case.

13. The case is ongoing and no outcome has yet been achieved.

Classification of the incident

17. When we consider a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.

18. Mr I says he promptly reported the assault to the FCDO and provided evidence, including local police documentation that classified the assault as a criminal matter. Despite this, the BCG classified the assault as a ‘civil personal dispute’ in its official communications. He says this incorrect classification contradicts police records and his initial account as the victim of the assault. He feels the inconsistencies between official local authority documentation and the FCDO’s internal records suggests there might have been deliberate attempts to alter the factual records.

19. In its complaint response dated 6 November 2024, the FCDO said the formal note issued by the BCG to the local authority on 15 January refers to Mr I’s case as a ‘civil personal dispute’ as this was the charge he had brought and the local authorities had not yet classed it as a criminal charge. The FCDO explained its understanding is therefore that the description was correct at that time. It apologised that this was not explained to him more clearly at the time.

20. The FCDO told us this approach is consistent with its guidance ‘Consular assistance: how the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office provides support’. This guidance describes the help the FCDO can provide to British nationals if they experience difficulty whilst living or travelling abroad. As the local authorities had themselves classified this incident at that time in this way, naming it differently could be construed as passing judgment on a case in advance of the official process. The FCDO highlighted that the Pro-Consul referred to the case as ‘potentially criminal’ in correspondence with Mr I from the start, acknowledging that Mr I was the victim of assault.

21. The FCDO explained its records indicate the incident was not classed as a criminal charge by the local authorities, even up to the point of the update on 24 November 2024 from the local authorities, because the witnesses and other individuals failed to appear when requested by the local police. A translation of the November 2024 update sent to Mr I by the BCG on 26 November 2024 states ‘[…] On 06 July 2024, the Investigation Agency […] issued a Decision to temporarily suspend the settlement of the offence denunciation. They are consolidating evidence to initiate criminal proceedings again as well as file charges against the accused and other people involved in accordance with local laws’.

22. We have carefully considered the correspondence. We acknowledge the frustration and distress Mr I experienced as a result of the FCDO’s reference to the attack as a ‘civil personal dispute’ on 15 January 2024 when he feels it should have been referred to as a criminal matter. As the matter was not referred to or classed as a criminal incident at the time by the local police, we do not consider there are any indications of maladministration in the FCDO not calling it a criminal matter.

23. This is because, as per its guidance on consular assistance, mentioned above, the FCDO cannot get involved in alleged criminal matters, as this remains the responsibility of the local authorities. The guidance states ‘we cannot […] investigate crimes […] This is the responsibility of the local authorities’. We have not seen anything in the guidance that indicates the FCDO should have done anything further or differently.

24. On 22 May 2026, the FCDO told us that the BCG had confirmed that there had been no new updates from the local authorities since their last update in November 2024. We therefore understand that there has been no change in the classification of the incident.

25. In its response dated 6 November 2024, the FCDO apologised that a clearer explanation was not provided at the time as to why the incident had been classified as a ‘civil personal dispute’. This is in line with our Principles of Good Complaint Handling on learning from complaints which state organisations should ‘ensure that all feedback and lessons learnt from complaints contribute to service improvement’. The FCDO has apologised for not clearly explaining why it classified the incident as a ‘civil personal dispute’ and then offered an explanation. This is what we would expect to see and we hope this provides Mr I with some reassurance.

Interpretation of request for support

26. Mr I says internal FCDO correspondence dated 2 July 2024 falsely states he requested the FCDO to cease all communications with the local authorities. He said he sought continued consular support and for the FCDO to proactively engage with the local authorities.

27. In the FCDO’s complaint response dated 6 November 2024, the FCDO explained Mr I wrote, ‘please provide a clear written statement confirming that the FCDO and the UK Embassy will not continue any involvement or communication with the [local] authorities about my case’. The FCDO explained Mr I’s request for continued support was phrased in a way that the consular staff understood it as a request to cease all communications with the local authorities.

28. The FCDO identified on 4 July that this was not what Mr I wanted, and the Vice Consul wrote to Mr I to confirm that the consular team was ready to continue making enquiries with the local authorities. They invited Mr I to contact it if he wanted any further enquiries to be made. Mr I responded on 12 July giving his consent for the FCDO to continue making enquiries and accordingly a request for an update via a ‘Note Verbale’ was sent to the local authorities on 17 July.

29. From Mr I’s subsequent correspondence, we can see his intention was to seek continuous support but that the FCDO understood he wanted the FCDO to stop seeking updates from the local authorities. We can see why the FCDO interpreted Mr I’s communication in the way that it did, and we consider the FCDO provided a reasonable explanation for why it interpreted it in that manner, based on the evidence available at the time. With this in mind, we have not seen any indication that the FCDO made mistakes in considering its obligations to provide support in line with its Consular Charter, given what it understood Mr I had asked it to do.

30. Our government complaint standards say that organisations should learn from complaints. The FCDO has shown it has done this and explained how. It promptly clarified the misinterpretation, two days after it occurred and invited Mr I to get in touch if he wanted to make further enquires. Once Mr I confirmed it would like the FCDO to continue making enquires it did this. Again, the FCDO did this promptly, within 5 days on 17 July. This in line with the Consular Charter and what we would expect to see.

31. We do not consider there are any indications of maladministration in relation to how the FCDO interpreted Mr I’s communication. The evidence shows as soon as Mr I got in touch to discuss what he was asking the FCDO to do, the FCDO resolved the matter. We are glad to see there was no material impact to Mr I as there is no evidence the matter prevented any planned communication that was supposed to be sent within that short period of time or removed any support he would otherwise have received. The FCDO recognised Mr I was worried about this incident, apologised and showed how it would learn from it. Again, this is in line with our Principles of Good Complaint Handling.

Conclusion

32. With the above in mind, we have decided we will not take further action on this complaint. We know these matters continue to be stressful and upsetting for Mr I, so we hope we have explained the thorough consideration we have given to our decision and clearly outlined the reasons for it.

1. We have carefully considered Mr I’s complaint about the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). We were extremely sorry to hear about the assault he experienced while abroad, which has evidently caused him significant distress, and that he remains concerned by the FCDO’s handling of his case.

2. Having considered the evidence available to us, we have seen no indication that anything went wrong as we consider the FCDO followed its guidance in relation to the way it referenced the assault and handled Mr I’s communication with it.

3. We recognise that Mr I suffers ongoing distress and frustration and his mental health has been impacted as a result of the assault. We hope that we have clearly explained our decision and that our explanations provide some reassurance to Mr I.