Wife Ordered Out Of Country Update! Not Good News

[mrbojangles]

Paul and gdnuttall, really sorry to hear about your dilemma's. Stories like those really make my blood curdle, especially on a saturday morning when i'm in ASDA getting brushed aside by asylum seekers and Polish immigrants, who have no British spouses.

[the gent]

the scouser

totster

Where is Bendix? As a Yank I know less then nothing about the UK and their Visa Laws.

Having said that, Sounds like a TROLL to drum up UK based BG's i.e. imported UK BG's Husband bu$iness.

The Scouser, the Scouser. TV Pro's recommend, with the drama in which the UK embassy interviews

these BG's before they go to the UK...Good for TV. Plenty of quaid to be had on this angle.

Touster, free or paid service, Please help! They need you. I need you. I need the entertainment

Please Act. The stage is set.

Drink can be a terrible thing........

[Eff1n2ret]

How pointless would it be to send her back only to come straight back again! Surely that alone would show how much of a farce this hole thing is.

In your case it is a total farce. The policy is quite reasonable, and DP3/96 has been tested in the courts. Effectively it means that illegals can't use marriage to a settled person as a means of frustrating enforcement action against them, and many such people who have established genuine relationships do return to their own country and subsequently get visas. However, your wife has applied to stay here for the same purpose for which she was originally granted entry, and having been here for 2 years before they refused her, she is entitled to have the application considered. It's plumb wrong for them to maintain otherwise, and I hope your solicitor tomorrow has got more balls than the first one.

Good luck

[the scouser]

So how did today's meeting go, Paul?

Scouse.

[Andrew Hicks]

Just got back from Solicitors Leonard & co in Southampton, and to say I'm not happy with the advice is an understatement!

The Solicitor i saw was Sangita Shah and from the off she didn't look too interested and amazingly ask me what the problem was with just sending my wife back and her reapplying for a visa in Thailand. I mentioned the Home Office policy DP3/96, which she brushed off as something they could easily get around. She told me " It's not a law, they can use it at their discretion". When i said i didn't want my daughter to go to Thailand as she can't speak Thai, she replied "Children adapt". She then got a book out for ten minutes, aimlessly flicking through until announcing what she needed wasn't in that book, it was online. Safe to say i was a little stunned by all this. Then she said she'll look into it and contact me in two weeks.

To be honest i think she reallied this case involves work and wanted to advise me on what would be the easiest for her, not what was best for us. You'd like to think any good Solicitor would be up for the challenge, but she certainly isn't.

Tomorrow I'm going to see Biscoe Solicitors in Portsmouth, I've had to wait over a week to see them because their so busy, hopefully their up for the fight! Scouse checked them out for me and says their good.

How pointless would it be to send her back only to come straight back again! Surely that alone would show how much of a farce this hole thing is.

My gorge rises as I read this thread. How could the authorities put you through this ordeal. Kafka springs to mind.

If you have judicial review in mind, it is a very narrow remedy focussing on procedural defects in decision making rather than how a discretion was actually exercised. A possible peg is if they failed to exercise that discretion but simply processed the decision without considering the merits of the case. How you ever would prove this though, I have no idea.

An ordinary high street solicitor will not have a clue about all this unless they are particularly sharp and it might be worth getting on the train up to London. It really does require a specialist in immigration/administrative law.

You need to know the legal position, but the legal route may not provide the answer for you.

I would be there at the barricade with you!

It must be so confusing for your wife too.

Andrew

[Andrew Hicks]

Just got back from Solicitors Leonard & co in Southampton, and to say I'm not happy with the advice is an understatement!

The Solicitor i saw was Sangita Shah and from the off she didn't look too interested and amazingly ask me what the problem was with just sending my wife back and her reapplying for a visa in Thailand. I mentioned the Home Office policy DP3/96, which she brushed off as something they could easily get around. She told me " It's not a law, they can use it at their discretion". When i said i didn't want my daughter to go to Thailand as she can't speak Thai, she replied "Children adapt". She then got a book out for ten minutes, aimlessly flicking through until announcing what she needed wasn't in that book, it was online. Safe to say i was a little stunned by all this. Then she said she'll look into it and contact me in two weeks.

To be honest i think she reallied this case involves work and wanted to advise me on what would be the easiest for her, not what was best for us. You'd like to think any good Solicitor would be up for the challenge, but she certainly isn't.

Tomorrow I'm going to see Biscoe Solicitors in Portsmouth, I've had to wait over a week to see them because their so busy, hopefully their up for the fight! Scouse checked them out for me and says their good.

How pointless would it be to send her back only to come straight back again! Surely that alone would show how much of a farce this hole thing is.

My gorge rises as I read this thread. How could the authorities put you through this ordeal. Kafka springs to mind.

If you have judicial review in mind, it is a very narrow remedy focussing on procedural defects in decision making rather than how a discretion was actually exercised. A possible peg is if they failed to exercise that discretion but simply processed the decision without considering the merits of the case. How you ever would prove this though, I have no idea.

An ordinary high street solicitor will not have a clue about all this unless they are particularly sharp and it might be worth getting on the train up to London. It really does require a specialist in immigration/administrative law.

You need to know the legal position, but the legal route may not provide the answer for you.

I would be there at the barricade with you!

It must be so confusing for your wife too.

Andrew

[Martin]

" It really does require a specialist in immigration/administrative law."

Whilst that seems true, it is also a terrible indictment of the whole mess that surrounds the Home Office.

This is 'maladministration'; in spirit, if not in letter.

A bit of common sense and recognition of the spirit of the law is surely all that should be necessary here. I can imagine that Lord Denning would have been scathing if he had had to adminster a 'clogging by the Judiciary' in this matter.

As 'Andrew Hicks' says, we must recognise that there are solicitors and solicitors.

I was an engineer, and teacher of it, but also served on various College and University governing bodies around twenty five years ago. The way they expanded their Schools of Law (because those required only the provision of 'chalk and talk') was frightening to me.

As well as the number of intelligent, articulate students of the traditional variety, they began letting in many of whom the kindest thing one can say is that "They wouldn't be among the brightest lights on a Christmas Tree".

So we must accept that we will have to sift carefully when choosing a solicitor.

[the scouser]

A bit of common sense and recognition of the spirit of the law is surely all that should be necessary here.

Quite. However, the Borders and Immigration Agency positively discourages its staff from exercising any judgment or common sense. It now employs those whom you may describe as being "not the brightest lights on the christmas tree" and expects them to obey the dictats issued from on high; the latest being that anyone who is an overstayer, irregardless of the circumstances, will have their application refused without further consideration of the merits of the case.

Scouse.

[Andrew Hicks]

" It really does require a specialist in immigration/administrative law."

Whilst that seems true, it is also a terrible indictment of the whole mess that surrounds the Home Office.

This is 'maladministration'; in spirit, if not in letter.

A bit of common sense and recognition of the spirit of the law is surely all that should be necessary here. I can imagine that Lord Denning would have been scathing if he had had to adminster a 'clogging by the Judiciary' in this matter.

As 'Andrew Hicks' says, we must recognise that there are solicitors and solicitors.

I was an engineer, and teacher of it, but also served on various College and University governing bodies around twenty five years ago. The way they expanded their Schools of Law (because those required only the provision of 'chalk and talk') was frightening to me.

As well as the number of intelligent, articulate students of the traditional variety, they began letting in many of whom the kindest thing one can say is that "They wouldn't be among the brightest lights on a Christmas Tree".

So we must accept that we will have to sift carefully when choosing a solicitor.

Martin,

I think it's not quite fair to blame the quality of intake of students to law schools. I lectured law at an English university until quite recently and the students were sharp... all A graders.

I now live in Thailand and write fiction and a blog on this website and enjoy the absence of regulation here that allows one to build a house without even telling anyone.

IBack in UK, in reality the problem with solicitors is that the law has become so complex that you can only be competent in a few areas. It has become too complex because of the complex style of regulation, because of hyperactive legislators like Labour who have to respond to everything with more laws and because sometimes, as with immigration, they are all over the place on policy as the political breezes blow.

I and my Thai wife and the initiator of this tread are among the victims.

Incidentally my name really is Andrew Hicks and I really am (was?) a solicitor.

Andrew

[roygsd]

HI Paul

what about an up date on how this is progressing?

roy gsd

[macduff]

What's happend to this topic?

[Martin]

Yes.

We are overdue an update.

I think it is at best thoughtless, and at worst downright anti-social to get people interested in, and giving their time and attention to, your on-going saga, and then not tell them how it worked out.

The end result of such behaviour, if it becomes prevalent, is that we shall all start ignoring those who need a (virtual) sympathetic ear, or two.

The best feature of websites like this will be lost, and only the worst remain.

[the scouser]

Although it was Paul's choice to originally post his wife's story on this forum, I can't help but feel that to chase him for updates is prurient.

He may well have instructed a representative who has advised him not to plaster anymore details over the internet. And, no, it's not me.

Scouse.

[legag]

Never been fair when our lives are in their hands oversea. It's the classic, tragidy, same old story which I truely feel for you and the crisis you are going through now. Nothing I can help but wishing you and your wife get this straight and kick some ''<deleted>" in dept. real good. Do they know what they doing or just abuse their job day by day. Don't even need to hire them to answer the phone and give out wrong info or even pretend they listen!!! This kinda people and sh** drives me crazy.

[Martin]

"He may well have instructed a representative who has advised him not to plaster anymore details over the internet. And, no, it's not me.

Scouse."

I understand that, 'Scouse'.

If there had been a posting saying that, then I am sure many would see the point and give short shrift to any who tried to be prurient.

[Paulwilday]

Hello everyone,

Great news! Yesterday my wifes passport fell through the door stamped with new two year visa. You're right i was wrong not to let you all know what was happening, and for that I'm sorry. The truth is i got so frustrated and bored of the whole thing that i chose to play the solitary waiting game. Also my solicitor knew of this website and went rather coy when mentioning scouse, an old flame or distant admirer? i didn't ask. So I wasn't comfortable posting, knowing she would be reading it.

All that happened was, my solicitor advised us we had no avenue for appeal (At least not an affordable one) because we had left it more than ten days. Anyone reading this in a similar situation please take one thing into consideration and that's act within the first ten days, we got lucky but if we had acted as quickly success would have been guaranteed.

As well as seeing a solicitor we went to our MP David Willetts. We only saw him briefly and gave him a rough outline of the case. He told me he didn't like our chances as the Home Office are renowned for their inflexibility, so we didn't hold our breath. A copy of what he sent to them also came to us a few day later, and on my rough briefing he'd managed to sum it all up to perfection. Six weeks ago a reply came from the Home Office saying our case had been referred to a senior case worker, but they couldn't guarantee the out come.

As i said above yesterday the passport arrived with no apologies or explanation. Slightly annoying seeing as its cost me £400 in solicitor fees. Although well worth the service (Joanne sullivan at Biscoes Portsmouth) Just in case she reads this! But truthfully she's very good.

So thanks to everyone that took the time to read and reply to my situation and i apologies again for my rude lack of response.

Paul.

[the scouser]

Your wife shouldn't have been wrung through the mill as she has been, but it's excellent news that she now has her extension.

I have previously worked in the Portsmouth immigration office, but deny any knowledge, professional or otherwise, of Ms. Sullivan. She's certainly represented your wife well, though.

Scouse.

[Mossfinn]

Where is Bendix? As a Yank I know less then nothing about the UK and their Visa Laws.

Having said that, Sounds like a TROLL to drum up UK based BG's i.e. imported UK BG's Husband bu$iness.

The Scouser, the Scouser. TV Pro's recommend, with the drama in which the UK embassy interviews

these BG's before they go to the UK...Good for TV. Plenty of quaid to be had on this angle.

Touster, free or paid service, Please help! They need you. I need you. I need the entertainment

Please Act. The stage is set.

A waste of a good Malt or more likely, pint after pint of cheap lager

My gorge rises as I read this thread. How could the authorities put you through this ordeal. Kafka springs to mind.

If you have judicial review in mind, it is a very narrow remedy focussing on procedural defects in decision making rather than how a discretion was actually exercised. A possible peg is if they failed to exercise that discretion but simply processed the decision without considering the merits of the case. How you ever would prove this though, I have no idea.

An ordinary high street solicitor will not have a clue about all this unless they are particularly sharp and it might be worth getting on the train up to London. It really does require a specialist in immigration/administrative law.

You need to know the legal position, but the legal route may not provide the answer for you.

I would be there at the barricade with you!

It must be so confusing for your wife too.

Andrew

Such a good post, he named it twice

I lectured law at an English university until quite recently and the students were sharp... all A graders.

I now live in Thailand and write fiction

IBack in UK, in reality the problem with solicitors is that the law has become so complex that you can only be competent in a few areas. It has become too complex because of the complex style of regulation, because of hyperactive legislators like Labour who have to respond to everything with more laws and because sometimes, as with immigration, they are all over the place on policy as the political breezes blow.

I really am (was?) a solicitor.

Deja vu again, how are you my old friend

Hello everyone,

Great news! Yesterday my wifes passport fell through the door stamped with new two year visa.

Paul.

Good to hear Paul and you were right to play it cautious, your future is more important that jeopardizing it here, good luck for the future.

Moss

I have previously worked in the Portsmouth immigration office, but deny any knowledge, professional or otherwise, of Ms. Sullivan. She's certainly represented your wife well, though.

Scouse.

Your fame goes forth in ever increasing circles

Moss

[Martin]

It is a great pleasure to hear that you finally got a successful outcome.

However, that does not remove the 'bad taste in my mouth' that it happened.

The whole thing makes an illustration of many of the ways in which things that are going wastefully wrong in the UK, and causing it to get a sick society.

Your time was wasted, in the sense of "unnecessarily consumed".

Your emotions were wasted, in the sense of "turned bad". (Thank you for doing it, but you have no need to apologise that you got frustrated and bored, and so acted out of character by not putting a message on here. That happens when individual humans get the feeling that they are being crushed by a system that is out of the control of ethical humans.)

Your money was wasted, again in the sense of "unnecessarily consumed".

Your MP served you well. But he had to use his time to work on an unnecessary problem of the present, when that time could otherwise have been spent on formulating properly-thought out policy for the future. Our MPs are supposed to be their constituents' representatives in Parliament, not troubleshooters of the effects of Parliament's deficiencies on their constituents. (For, as 'Scouse' pointed out, at the root of this is the desire for apparently-good figures to be available for a Minister to report to Parliament. So it is rooted in a deficiency of Parliament as it is presently being misused by Government.) So your MP's time was wasted, in the sense of "prevented from being used for its proper function".

However clerks and solicitors in private practice and their 'opposite numbers' in the Home Office contributed a bit to the wonders of "Growth of GDP".

It is time that the UK woke up to the fact that bads as well as goods, and dis-services as well as helpful services, are parts of its GDP and gave it some critical examination. Otherwise the sickness of the UK society and its parliamentary democracy will develop to the stage where it lays the patient low.

I am glad to hear that you as an individual are out of that bit of the creek, but the UK as a whole is still well up it.

[Eff1n2ret]

Congratulations, Paulwilday!

I'm curious on a couple of points:-

1) Given that the original application was refused because it was out of time, and therefore attracted no right of appeal, what is the significance of the 10-day period referred to by your solicitor?

2) Was there no covering letter or explanation at all? So you don't know whether they are owning up to making a mistake, or are ignoring their own rules out of the kindness of their hearts? I can't believe it's the latter.

Anyway, well done.

[boof623]

cogratulations mate,

have been following this topic with interest, even though i am on the other side of the world as i know what it is like to get screwed by your government, the money you spent will be well worth it as you sound like you are a sincere guy with a loving wife and will be together talaut pai (forever), i wish all the best mate from the land of oz.

reading other posts from the uk about various immigration topics it bring back nightmares of some of the things the immigration dept for oz use to do to you when i married my wife some 6 years ago.

i admit that they have improved 1000% from what they use to be like, but it seems the uk one is regressing back to the dark ages with unitelligent, asrh##les manning the post now.

i am extremely annoyed ( thats about as nice as i can put it without getting thrown off the network) at these people who play with peoples lives on a daily basis and make decisions that are not based on evidence supplied but on how they feel that day.

anyway enough morbid cr#p, best for the future mate

[Richard W]

Paul

Did they return her passport, how can she leave without it. You may have read in the 'general' forum that you are not alone (although I know that is not much comfort to you). It seems it's a new policy. See here and click on "Thai mother to be deported".

As this route to the story is getting difficult to use, note that it can be accessed using this direct URL.

[the gent]

Gratifying to learn that a successful outcome has now been delivered, albeit not without the threat of legal action, by the filthy little stalinistas which now pass as civil servants under the NuLabour regime.

You may recall that I knew you would succeed ultimately but the anticipated delay and attendant stress was doubtless at a price those tossers could not even begin comprehend and that is an imbalance which should be redressed.

Financial compensation is probably a dream but the mechanics of your case if cascaded to the forum may well prevent further future heartache by others. Are you able to assist?

[Martin]

'boof623' in post #111 said:"......but it seems the uk one is regressing back to the dark ages with unitelligent, asrh##les manning the post now. i am extremely annoyed ( thats about as nice as i can put it without getting thrown off the network) at these people who play with peoples lives on a daily basis and make decisions ..........."

From what 'Scouser' said about the Home Office, it appears that 'these people' are accepting orders to make these decisions without reference to their effect on peoples' lives, but purely on the 'letter of the law'.

But these are people who, again as said by 'Scouser', who have been admitted into a profession on the basis of their academic success and their integrity.

Yesterday, I happened to come across a quotation from the Nuremburg Trials: "Evil is the absence of empathy".

These people 'of integrity' are accepting orders to behave evilly.

I know that is a serious charge, and 'evil' is a word that should never be used lightly; but I feel that we have got to the stage where that charge should be levelled at those who are accepting, and very vehemently at those who are giving, these orders.

I am unsure of how it could be done, as it doesn't fit within the Parliamentary Question procedure, but a way should be found to raise this in Parliament.

It should also be raised within the Professional Association of these people. I don't even know which that is. Perhaps 'Scouser' can enlighten us on that (and may have some comments, too).

Remembering my days when I served in a technical teachers' professional association, there would have been ructions if instructions had come from our employers that we were to act without empathy in dealing with our students. 'Ruction time' seems overdue for this part of the legal profession that serves in the Home Office.