90% of initial decisions reviewed under the EU Settlement Scheme overturned

Dec 10, 2019

As of 31 October 2019, more than 1.9 million applications to the EU Settlement Scheme that have been determined. Of these, 60% were granted settled status, 40% were granted pre-settled status and four applications were refused on suitability grounds. An incorrect decision could impact the terms by which EU nationals and their family members are able to reside and access services in the UK after Brexit.

written by Judit Adorjan


If a decision grants pre-settled status instead of settled status due to a caseworker error or an application is refused on eligibility grounds, the initial decision can be reviewed by a different official, but within the same department. This administrative review is the primary form of redress available for EU Settlement Scheme applicants if they believe they have received an incorrect decision.

An administrative review is not available against a decision where an application is refused on suitability grounds. In this case an application can be refused due to serious or persistent offending, non-exercise or misuse of rights in the Citizens Directive (Directive 2004/38) or where the applicant has provided false or misleading information in the application.


As opposed to other administrative review systems run by the Home Office, an administrative review allows individuals to submit further evidence, which will then be considered alongside their original application.

Statistics on administrative reviews for the EU Settlement Scheme show that 451 requests have been received as of 12 September 2019. This figure does appear to be relatively low in relation to the 885,000 decisions which may be eligible for challenge.

The statistics published reveal that 89.5% of decisions reviewed were overturned. Whilst this does imply that the automated data checks and initial decision makers are frequently making mistakes, the high success rate could suggest that the administrative reviews are working efficiently. However, the reconsidered decision could be attributed to the opportunity to introduce new evidence for the reviewer to consider. Therefore, it is possible the Home Office was accurate in the initial decision, but new evidence has led to that decision being overturned on review. This raises the concern that the initial application process does not inform applicants of the facility to submit supplementary evidence and the types of evidence required for the scheme.