eVisa failures preventing access to public funds

The Unity Project has published a short new report looking at issues surrounding eVisas and the no recourse to public funds conditions. The main problem is that when people have made a successful change of conditions application and the Home Office has sent a letter stating that the no recourse to public funds condition has been lifted from their leave, eVisas are not being updated to reflect this. This has led to people being refused benefits because of the lack of an updated eVisa. The charity notes that:

We started tracking eVisa updates following successful CoC decisions consistently as of 1/11/24. eVisas were not updated following a successful CoC in the vast majority of cases (more than 25) over the following three months to January 2025.

The only escalation route provided by the Home Office is the eVisa error reporting form, however The Unity Project states that despite using this form in almost all of the above cases, responses were received to only three of the reports. Those three responses were generic acknowledgements and no further updates were received from the Home Office. Other organisations have reported similar problems.

The Unity Project sets out advice for what people should do where they are entitled to public funds but this is not reflected on their eVisa. This includes applying for public funds using the Home Office’s decision letter to prove entitlement, and if there are any problems to “show the relevant authority this advice note and request that they confirm in writing on what basis you are being denied your entitlements so that you can be advised accordingly.”

The report also highlights some general issues around eVisas, for example that there is nothing on an eVisa that shows the fate it was updated, making it impossible for people to identify when changes have been made unless they have been diligently collating dated screenshots.

This is an issue that can have very serious consequences for people in urgent situations involving destitution and it is concerning to read the “Home Office engagement” section of the report in which the Home Office does not appear to be treating this matter with the importance and urgency that it is owed.