Contents
Miscalculated absences from the UK, overlooked bank statements and objections to a business having no website are among the problems in settlement decisions involving Turkish nationals reported by the Guardian. Lawyers quoted by the newspaper describe a tougher approach to some applications. The Home Office denies that its approach has changed.
The report, published on 8 November 2026, concerns people using the European Community Association Agreement (ECAA) route linked to running a business in the UK. They were applying for indefinite leave to remain (ILR), which grants permission to stay without a time limit.
Sharp fall in settlement grants
According to Home Office figures cited by the Guardian, 745 settlement applications under this route were granted in the first six months of 2026, compared with 3,378 in the same period of 2025 — a fall of around 78%. The number of grants alone does not, however, establish the refusal rate or explain the reasons for the difference.
The newspaper also cites a freedom of information response covering administrative reviews, the procedure through which a decision is reconsidered within the immigration system. There were 145 ECAA applications subject to administrative review during the whole of 2025, compared with 395 from January to mid-August 2026. Those figures cover periods of different lengths and are therefore not a straightforward year-on-year comparison.
Disputed reasons for refusal
In one case described by the Guardian, the Home Office refused settlement on grounds that included the business having no website or social media presence. According to the newspaper, an online presence was not a requirement. The department also wrongly stated that the applicant had failed to provide a complete set of bank statements. The refusal was subsequently overturned.
In another case reported by the newspaper, the Home Office allegedly miscalculated the time an applicant had spent outside the UK, wrongly concluding that they had exceeded the limit of 180 days’ absence in a 12-month period.
Lawyers quoted in the report describe a stricter approach to some applications submitted from September 2025, as well as delays in processing them. That is their assessment of the department’s practice, rather than confirmation of a formal change in the rules.
Lammy criticises decisions as Home Office denies a change
David Lammy, the MP for Tottenham, told the newspaper that constituents affected by the decisions had contacted him. He compared their experiences with the Windrush scandal and called on the Home Office to revisit the lessons of its review. The comparison is the politician’s assessment, not a finding by a court or an independent inquiry into these cases.
A Home Office spokesperson said there had been no change in the way ECAA settlement applications were considered. The department said each application continued to be assessed individually, in line with published rules and guidance.
The cases concern decisions on permission to remain indefinitely. A refusal of that status does not in itself mean that a deportation has taken place: the newspaper’s report does not establish that the people described were removed from the UK.
