A Home Office refusal can feel like a verdict on someone’s honesty. The language often lands hard: “not credible”, “inconsistencies”, “not satisfied”, “little weight”. But credibility findings are not always the result of dishonesty. In many cases, they are the product of casework mistakes, missing context, or evidence that was not properly understood.
Garth Coates Solicitors is upfront about the value of understanding how decisions are made in the first place. The firm’s founder spent years working inside the Home Office as an immigration caseworker, which is why their challenge work focuses on what the guidance requires decision-makers to do — and where they often fall short.
This article explains the credibility and factual error patterns that show up most often, how to spot them quickly, and how to present corrections in a way that actually shifts the outcome.
What “credibility” means in Home Office decision-making
In most non-asylum immigration decisions, “credibility” is not a single legal test. It is shorthand for whether a caseworker believes the applicant’s account is reliable, consistent, and supported by evidence.
Credibility issues tend to appear when the Home Office believes:
- a document is unreliable (or doesn’t match other records)
- timelines do not add up (dates, travel, cohabitation, study, employment)
- answers given in an interview do not match the application
- the explanation provided is vague, generic, or implausible
Sometimes the Home Office is right to ask questions. Often, though, the “credibility” problem is really a presentation problem — or an error hidden in the decision.
When that happens, the remedy is rarely “send more evidence”. It is: identify the mistake, prove it clearly, and tie the correction to the rules and guidance the caseworker was supposed to follow.
If the outcome is a refusal, the options for challenging it are usually route-specific, but Garth Coates highlights that many refusals can be challenged through mechanisms such as Administrative Review, Pre-Action Protocol letters, and Judicial Review, depending on the circumstances.
The most common factual errors that derail decisions
Factual mistakes can be surprisingly basic — and still decisive. Common examples include:
1) Misreading or overlooking key documents
A decision may say a document was “not provided” when it was included, or it may quote a figure/date incorrectly. This often happens where evidence is uploaded in bulk without a clear index.
2) Mixing up timelines
Caseworkers can miscalculate periods of residence, cohabitation, absences, or qualifying time. This can lead to the wrong type of grant (for example, limited leave rather than indefinite leave) or a refusal that does not reflect the evidence. Garth Coates’ EU Settlement Scheme guidance gives a practical example: miscalculating residence years can be the kind of clerical error that may be corrected via Administrative Review.
3) Treating inconsistency as dishonesty when it is actually normal life
People move house. Banks abbreviate addresses. Employers use payroll addresses. Passport stamps are messy. A refusal may turn ordinary admin noise into “inconsistency” unless it is explained properly.
4) Assuming a missing item means something negative
Sometimes a caseworker expects a document type that is not required, or assumes the absence of one record undermines the whole story. A good correction explains what the rules actually require and offers a credible alternative.
Where credibility findings most often go wrong
Credibility findings become vulnerable when they are conclusory (“not satisfied”) rather than reasoned (“because X contradicts Y, and therefore Z”).
Look for these red flags:
- A) The decision cherry-picks
If the refusal references only the weakest pieces of evidence and ignores stronger records (official letters, consistent address trails, long-term financial evidence), that can be a “failure to consider material evidence”. - B) The decision relies on assumptions instead of evidence
For example: “If the relationship were genuine, the couple would have done X.” That is not evidence. It is speculation — and it is often challengeable when the applicant can show the reality of their circumstances. - C) The decision treats minor discrepancies as fatal
A misspelt town name or a small date mismatch should usually trigger a request for clarification — not a credibility collapse. Where the Home Office goes straight to refusal, it can sometimes point to an unfair approach. - D) Interview answers are summarised inaccurately
In Student visa interviews, for instance, credibility issues can hinge on how answers were recorded and interpreted. If a refusal relies heavily on interview summaries, it becomes essential to correct misunderstandings with precise written submissions and supporting evidence. (For the Student route itself, see Garth Coates’ Student Visa)
How to spot casework mistakes quickly
A practical review method is to treat the refusal letter like a checklist and audit it line by line:
1) Extract every negative finding into a list
Turn the refusal into numbered points. If the decision says “no evidence of cohabitation”, that becomes Point 1. If it says “funds not held for the required period”, that becomes Point 2.
2) For each point, ask: is it factual, interpretive, or legal?
- Factual: “You did not provide bank statements.”
- Interpretive: “Your messages do not show a genuine relationship.”
- Legal: “You do not meet Appendix FM.”
This matters because each type of error needs a different response.
3) Build a ‘correction pack’ that is easy to verify
Corrections work best when they are impossible to miss:
- a short timeline (key dates only)
- an indexed bundle (Point 1 evidence, Point 2 evidence, etc.)
- a clean explanation of what the evidence shows and why the refusal is wrong
4) Identify the route to challenge early
Garth Coates sets out that challenge options can include Administrative Review, Pre-Action Protocol (PAP), and Judicial Review, and the correct path depends on the reason for refusal and the remedy available.
For formal challenge support, see Appeals and Judicial Review.
Presenting corrections in a way decision-makers actually accept
A strong correction is not emotional. It is structured, evidenced, and targeted.
Start with a one-page “error summary”
Each bullet should follow the same format:
- What the Home Office said
- Why it is wrong
- What the evidence proves
- Where the evidence is located (page/document reference)
This is the difference between a correction and a re-argument.
Use “bridge explanations” for real inconsistencies
If there is a genuine discrepancy, address it head-on. Explain it once, clearly, and support it. For example:
- address formatting differences (bank vs council letters)
- name variations (middle names, transliteration)
- gaps in documents (self-employment, informal housing)
Only include evidence that moves the needle
Dumping 200 pages of screenshots rarely helps. Provide:
- a small number of high-quality primary documents
- representative samples (not full chat exports)
- official records where possible
For relationship-based routes, this approach aligns with how credible bundles are built for family visas. Relevant service pages include Spouse Visa and Civil Partner Visa.
Choosing the right remedy: review, appeal, or judicial review
Not every credibility dispute is solved the same way:
- Administrative Review can be appropriate where the Home Office made an obvious error on the evidence or misapplied the rules.
- Appeals (where a right of appeal exists) allow a tribunal to examine the evidence more independently.
- Judicial Review is usually about the lawfulness of the decision-making process — for example, irrational conclusions, procedural unfairness, or failing to follow guidance.
Garth Coates also notes contexts where Judicial Review may be the only practical route, such as sponsor licence revocation challenges: see Sponsor Licence Suspension and Revocation.
And for broader commentary on decision-making quality and the system’s complexity, see The challenges of the UK’s immigration system: digitalisation, delays and legislative complexity and Can the Home Office be sued for extreme delay?.
Credibility refusals are often beatable — but only when the challenge is built around specific mistakes, clear corrections, and evidence presented in a tribunal-ready way.
For tailored advice on spotting casework errors, drafting correction submissions, and choosing the right challenge route, contact Garth Coates Solicitors via their Contact page or explore their wider support under UK Immigration Lawyers. For transparency on costs, see Services & Fees.
Ready to move forward with your UK immigration plans? Garth Coates Solicitors can guide you at every step — from eligibility checks and document preparation to submission and follow-up. If you’re launching a business, our uk start up visa team can help you build a strong application. Need support with work routes? Speak to a trusted skilled worker visa solicitor today. We also advise on the uk self sponsorship visa for entrepreneurs seeking more control. Studying in the UK? Our student visa solicitors are here to help — contact us now for tailored advice.
