Solutions on Time Limited t/a Migrate Group v The Immigration Services Commission

The Appeal is Allowed. Substituted Decision:The appeal is remitted to the Respondent with the following directions(already confirmed in correspondence): a) The Level 1 competence assessment shall take place on 30 April 2026. b) The onboarding window shall run from 15–22 April 2026. c) The onboarding invitation shall be issued by 15 April 2026. d) The invitation shall be sent to [email protected]. e) The Appellant shall attempt onboarding on 15 April 2026 and must notify the Respondent immediately of any technical issues. f) The Respondent shall consider any reasonable adjustments supported by evidence. REASONS FOR DECISION Background:

1. The Appellant, through its director and proposed adviser, Mr Braganza, applied for registration under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. As part of the statutory competence-assessment framework, applicants are required to complete an online onboarding process prior to undertaking the Level 1 competence assessment.

2. Two onboarding windows were offered: 9–16 April 2025 and 14–21 May 2025. The Respondent refused the Appellant’s application on 23 May 2025 on the basis that onboarding had not been completed within either window and, accordingly, that the Respondent could not be satisfied of the adviser’s competence for the purposes of section 83(5) of the 1999 Act.

3. The Appellant appealed. The appeal was heard on 11 March 2026. The Tribunal received oral evidence from the Respondent, the Appellant’s account of the technical difficulties encountered, and submissions from both parties. The Panel also considered the issues they had refined in advance of the hearing and the subsequent deliberation notes. Chronology:

4. On 9 April 2025 the Respondent issued the first onboarding invitation to the Appellant’s business email address. During the first onboarding window, the Appellant attempted to complete onboarding but experienced legitimate technical and security-related difficulties involving antivirus conflicts with the Proctortrack software. Respondent staff provided assistance, but they were not technical specialists and were unable to resolve the difficulties.

5. The Respondent acknowledged the exceptional nature of the Appellant’s difficulties following the first window. A second onboarding invitation was issued on 14 May 2025. Unlike previous correspondence, it was sent to the Appellant’s personal Gmail address. This address had not been used in prior communications between the parties. The invitation was therefore not seen by the Appellant, who awaited contact at the work email address consistently used for earlier correspondence.

6. The Appellant contacted the Respondent on 21 May 2025, the final day of the second onboarding period, to enquire about the absence of an onboarding invitation. The Respondent refused the application on 23 May 2025 for failure to complete onboarding in time. Issues:

7. The Tribunal considered the Issues, including: a) Whether the Respondent lawfully refused the application in light of section 83(5); b) Whether the Respondent acted reasonably and fairly in administering the onboarding process; c) Whether the second onboarding invitation was sent to an expected email address; d) Whether the Appellant’s technical difficulties constituted exceptional circumstances requiring accommodation; e) Whether the Respondent’s decision was proportionate and procedurally fair; and f) Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to award compensation (it does not). Submissions: Appellant

8. The Appellant submitted that Mr Braganza took repeated, diligent steps to complete onboarding, including attempting various technical fixes and purchasing a new computer specifically to mitigate the security concerns connected to installing monitoring software on a machine containing confidential client files. It was argued that the Respondent’s technical support was insufficient in light of known and recurring issues with Proctortrack’s compatibility. The Appellant submitted that no explanation was ever given for sending the second onboarding invitation to an email address not being used at the material time between the parties, and that it was exceptionally unfair to treat the Appellant as responsible for failing to monitor that account. Respondent

9. The Respondent maintained that two opportunities have been provided and that the personal email address had been listed by the Appellant in the original application. The Respondent submitted that reasonable support was given and that adherence to onboarding requirements was necessary to ensure the integrity of the competence-assessment process. Analysis:

10. The Tribunal accepts that the Respondent has statutory duties to ensure that advisers are competent. However, fairness is a central component of the statutory scheme. Where an applicant has encountered significant, documented technical barriers and has taken real steps to resolve them, the Respondent must ensure that such barriers do not unjustly preclude progression through the competence assessment.

11. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Appellant made sustained, conscientious efforts to engage with the onboarding process, including attempting to resolve antivirus conflicts and purchasing a separate device to mitigate legitimate professional concerns regarding client confidentiality. The Tribunal find these steps were consistent with diligence, not avoidance.

12. The Tribunal considers it material that the Respondent’s staff attempting to assist with onboarding were not technically trained and were unable to resolve the issues. This was confirmed and apparent from the witness evidence provided at the hearing. The Respondent is aware that outsourced onboarding frequently gives rise to technical difficulties. It is incumbent upon the Respondent to ensure that applicants are not disadvantaged by known or recurrent system limitations.

13. Further the Tribunal attaches significant weight to the fact that the second onboarding invitation was sent to an email address not previously used by the Respondent in its communications with the Appellant in relation to this application, and that no explanation was provided for this departure from established practice. Nor was it was it explained at the hearing of this appeal. In these circumstances where the Respondent had accepted that the first attempt involved exceptional difficulties, the procedural fairness of the second attempt was of heightened importance. The Tribunal further find unexplained use of a new email address deprived the Appellant of a fair opportunity to complete onboarding.

14. In these circumstances, we find that two onboarding windows had existed is and should not be determinative. The first window was compromised by unresolved technical issues and the second by administrative inconsistency. The Tribunal is satisfied that the refusal decision was disproportionate and procedurally unfair.

15. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award compensation. Conclusion:

16. The appeal is allowed. SUBSTITUTED DECISION

17. The Respondent’s decision dated 23 May 2025 is set aside as procedurally unfair and disproportionate. The Appellant was not afforded a fair opportunity to complete onboarding and demonstrate competence.

18. The appeal is remitted to the Respondent with the following directions, already confirmed in correspondence: g) The Level 1 competence assessment shall take place on 30 April 2026. h) The onboarding window shall run from 15–22 April 2026. i) The onboarding invitation shall be issued by 15 April 2026. j) The invitation shall be sent to [email protected]. k) The Appellant shall attempt onboarding on 15 April 2026 and must notify the Respondent immediately of any technical issues. l) The Respondent shall consider any reasonable adjustments supported by evidence. Judge Brian Kennedy KC 13 March 2026.