![](https://cellardoorproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/legal-action-has-been-initiated-by-students-who-were-falsely-accused-of-cheating-in-an-english-test.jpg)
A lawsuit has been filed by a group of international students who were falsely accused of cheating on their English language proficiency exams, which were necessary for renewing their study visas. They are seeking remuneration from the Home Office for being wrongfully detained and losing income.
The government has issued payments in two instances, but lawyers are disappointed with the department’s decision not to establish a standard compensation plan for students who have been falsely accused. This plan, according to them, would expedite the process of obtaining justice.
Bindmans, a legal firm, is currently representing a group of 23 students who have successfully appealed their immigration cases. Their visas were initially cancelled by the Home Office due to allegations of cheating. Now, Bindmans is urging the department to handle this case as a collective action.
Skip the advertisement for the newsletter.
after newsletter promotion
Clients are seeking compensation for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, loss of earnings (during the period their contested immigration status meant they were prohibited from working) and damage to their mental health.
Efforts to obtain reparation are being made a decade after the Home Office initiated actions to revoke the visas of approximately 35,000 foreign students, following the exposure of cheating at certain English language test facilities in a BBC documentary. Despite clear evidence of cheating at some test centers approved by the Home Office, numerous students have spent years protesting that they were unfairly impacted by the department’s determination to label 97% of test takers as potential cheaters.
According to Alice Hardy, a partner at Bindmans, some clients of the firm were detained by immigration officers without prior knowledge of being accused of cheating. These detentions happened during early morning raids and the reasons for their arrest were not made clear.
Our customers have endured a great deal of hardship. The government intentionally withheld information from them about being accused of cheating, leaving them unable to defend themselves. Instead, their immigration status was revoked with no option for an appeal within the country. This resulted in them losing everything – homes, jobs, the ability to work, study, and pay rent. They faced the humiliation and disapproval of their families, strained relationships, poverty, and the anguish of having all their efforts stripped away. According to Hardy, this was a devastating experience for our clients.
For a span of 10 years, these circumstances continued and resulted in immeasurable hardship. It is now evident that the accusations were founded on insufficient proof.
Between October 2020 and March 2022, the company made 23 claims, but only one has been resolved. Lawyers had aimed to convince the department to create a scheme, similar to the Windrush compensation program, that would outline specific categories for compensation payments. This was in hopes of expediting the process. However, the Home Office has declined the proposal from Bindmans.
Hardy stated that the Home Office has the opportunity to rectify the harm caused by apologizing to our clients and implementing a practical and effective settlement plan that will allow them to move forward. It is disheartening that they have chosen not to take this action.
One student, represented by a separate law firm, has been awarded compensation for an accusation of cheating on a test. Mohammad Bhuiyan received a sum of £13,500 from the Home Office in 2021 as compensation for being wrongfully detained for 47 days due to an allegation of cheating on an English language test.
According to a representative from the Home Office, the inquiry conducted in 2014 regarding the misuse of English language exams uncovered widespread cheating that pointed to a large-scale fraud scheme. The courts have repeatedly determined that the evidence was compelling enough to justify our actions.
Source: theguardian.com