The3million, an organisation representing EU citizens in the UK, has initiated legal proceedings against the Home Office over a controversial policy that allows the department to retroactively invalidate immigration status granted under the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS).
On September 3, 2026, the3million sent a pre-action protocol letter to the Home Office, the formal step that normally precedes a judicial review application. The organisation argues that the Home Office’s “granted in error” policy violates fundamental principles of procedural fairness and the rule of law.
The Policy Under Challenge
According to the3million’s legal challenge, the Home Office has adopted a practice whereby it can declare that certain EU citizens were granted pre-settled status under the EUSS “in error.” Under this policy, if the Home Office decides that a person should not have qualified for status, it can allow their pre-settled status to expire without giving them an opportunity to challenge the decision.
Most troublingly, in many cases there was no mistake when the original status was granted. The individuals met the requirements and were properly granted status under the EUSS, but years later the Home Office retroactively claims the grant was a mistake—with no decision letter issued and nothing to appeal.
After the status expires without any formal decision, these individuals are considered to be in the UK unlawfully, potentially facing detention and removal despite having been lawfully granted immigration status in the first place.
Scale of the Problem
The3million reports that at least 100 people have been told their EU Settlement Scheme status was granted in error. The organisation’s legal team argues that this represents an institutional failure to properly review cases and raises serious questions about the Home Office’s quality assurance processes during the initial EUSS processing.
At the outset of the EU Settlement Scheme, the Home Office faced enormous pressure to grant status to millions of people within a relatively short timeframe. Home Office caseworkers inevitably made mistakes during this process, granting pre-settled status to some individuals who were not technically eligible.
However, the3million contends that the Home Office’s response—silently allowing status to expire without providing applicants with any decision or right of appeal—is profoundly unjust to those who genuinely qualified for status but were mislabelled as “granted in error.”
Legal Arguments
The organisation argues the policy is unlawful on several grounds:
- Denial of Procedural Fairness: Individuals have no opportunity to challenge the Home Office’s assertion that their status was granted in error.
- Absence of a Formal Decision: No formal decision letter is issued, leaving individuals in legal limbo with no document to appeal.
- Retroactive Application: The Home Office is applying this process to grants made in the past, potentially years after the original decision.
- Administrative Fairness: The policy lacks transparency and proper safeguards for the affected individuals.
What Happens Next
The Home Office has 14 calendar days to respond to the3million’s pre-action protocol letter. If the department does not address the organisation’s concerns adequately, the3million has indicated it is prepared to pursue a judicial review in the High Court.
A judicial review would require the court to examine whether the Home Office acted lawfully and fairly in adopting and applying this policy. Such a challenge could potentially establish important precedent regarding procedural fairness in immigration status determinations.
Broader Implications
This case highlights ongoing concerns about the Home Office’s handling of immigration matters and the need for robust procedural safeguards when government agencies revoke or invalidate immigration status.
The3million’s challenge serves as a reminder that even when a government department faces operational pressures or discovers errors in its own processes, it cannot circumvent fundamental principles of administrative law and fairness when the consequences are so significant for individuals and their families.
The outcome of this legal challenge will be closely watched by immigration lawyers and EU citizens in the UK who have concerns about the security of their immigration status.