Briefing two
A second chance to be seen and protected
Analysis of policy and data on reconsideration requests for negative decisions from the National Referral Mechanism
Published December 2025
Background
Previous analysis and discussion on reconsideration requests could only use summary data on the total numbers of reconsideration requests which were accepted that led to a positive decision being made or a negative decision being upheld. This briefing provides the first analysis of disaggregated data on cases where a reconsideration request was accepted since this data was first published in May 2025. The data on reconsiderations covers the period between January 2021 (the first period that data is available for) and June 2025 (the most recently available data at the time of writing).
The briefing looks at the numbers and outcomes of reconsidered decisions by common nationalities, first responders, age and gender (analysis of those different variables was not possible using the summary data) as well as competent authorities.
Key Findings
- Since 2023 the percentage of reconsidered RG and CG decisions resulting in a positive decision were higher than the percentage of initial positive decisions in that period.
- Overall, the percentages of negative RG and CG decisions which are reconsidered are extremely low but those decisions which are reconsidered have a very high likelihood of being given a positive decision.
- Between 1 January 2021 and 30 June 2025 over 650 people who received a positive RG decision following a successful reconsideration request went onto receive a positive CG decision. 70% of CG decisions were positive for people who received a positive RG decision after a reconsideration.
- There are higher percentages of reconsidered decisions by the Single Competent Authority (SCA) resulting in a positive decision than the Immigration Enforcement Competent Authority (IECA) at both RG and CG stages.
- The IECA is overrepresented among reconsidered RG decisions compared to how many negative RG decisions it makes but is underrepresented in reconsidered CG decision until the most recent period that data is available.
Key Recommendations for the Home Office
Recommendations for the policies on reconsideration requests
- The Home Office should withdraw paragraph 14.216 from the Modern Slavery Act Statutory Guidance to ensure that all people progressing through the NRM system have equal rights to have a negative NRM decision reconsidered.
- The Home Office should consider revising the Modern Slavery Act Statutory Guidance to remove the 30-day time limit to submit a reconsideration request on the grounds of new evidence to restore focus on the material importance of new evidence for determining whether to accept a reconsideration request rather than when this evidence has become available or accessible.
- The Home Office should consider revising the Modern Slavery Act Statutory Guidance to restore the three-month window for requests on the grounds of whether the decision was made in line with the guidance to realign the process with timeframes for lodging a judicial review.
- The Home Office should consider revising the Statutory Guidance to acknowledge that judicial reviews may be used to challenge disqualifications from the NRM (which it acknowledges can be used in the case of decisions for an additional recovery period).
- The Home Office should consider re-establishing Multi-Agency Assurance Panels (in an updated form) to review negative CG decisions to strengthen the quality assurance of decision-making by both competent authorities.
Recommendations for how data on reconsidered NRM decisions are collected and published
- Consider collecting and publishing data on the numbers of reconsideration requests submitted which are not accepted and the reasons they were not accepted. This would mean people deciding whether to make a reconsideration request would be better informed about the likelihood of a request being accepted. It would also help to contextualise the very high percentages of reconsidered decisions which are positive.
- Consider publishing data on judicial reviews and pre-action-protocols for decisions from the NRM.
- Consider exploring the possibility to make enhancements to the UKDS NRM dataset to show the reasons for initial negative decisions for cases with a reconsidered decision which is positive.
