Settlement Visa refused, claimed lack of supporting documents

[ilovepayingukvisafees]

Picked up the passport today. Visa refused..... Gutted.

Reason for refusal " Company Tax Return (CT600) did not cover the full financial year for the supporting paperwork".

Actually it did but the ECO did notice that there were two CT600's in the folder as the company year was 1 year and 5 days.

An early Christmas present from the Home Office - thanks guys!

[7by7]

Whilst there is no longer a right of appeal for settlement visas, the applicant can, I understand, ask for an Entry Clearance Manager review of a refusal. If the only reason for refusal was the ECO not noticing a document in the application then I reckon there should be a good chance of the refusal being overturned.

If you want advice on this I suggest you start a new topic, as individual cases can go unnoticed by the experts in this one about processing times.

I also suggest that you post a copy of the refusal notice in full, after deleting all names and other identifying information.

[Tony M]

I'm not sure that I understand the reason for refusal - "Company Tax Return (CT600) did not cover the full financial year for the supporting paperwork"

Does that mean that the supporting paperwork and the CT600 covered different different periods of time ? The supporting paperwork must cover the same period as the CT600 ( the company tax year). It sounds like the supporting documentation might have been for a financial tax year ( April - March) , but the CT600 might have been for a different period ( as it can be for a company tax year).

[ilovepayingukvisafees]

Thank you for getting back to me on this. I will look into moving this to a separate post. Is this something I can do or does a moderator need to do this?

The first year of accounts covered a year and 5 days. HMRC do not allow a tax return to cover a period of longer than a calendar year, therefore my accountant split the year 3 months/ 9 months and 5 days.

In the refusal letter, the ECO states that a CT600 (short) covering 3 months was submitted but there is no mention of the CT600 covering the 9 months 5 days.

Your sponsor has therefore failed to provide all of the specified evidence for those receiving income from employment and/or share in a limited company based in the UK. Your sponsor’s CT600 does not cover the last financial year of the company and therefore the other co-dependent documents are not in accordance with the requirement of Appendix FM (SE).

When the documents were returned, the CT600 was there, in the section entitled Company Tax Return. A receipt to show that this had been submitted to HMRC was also recorded.. All of the documents relate to the financial year in question.

[ThaiVisaExpress]

Thank you for getting back to me on this. I will look into moving this to a separate post. Is this something I can do or does a moderator need to do this?

The first year of accounts covered a year and 5 days. HMRC do not allow a tax return to cover a period of longer than a calendar year, therefore my accountant split the year 3 months/ 9 months and 5 days.

In the refusal letter, the ECO states that a CT600 (short) covering 3 months was submitted but there is no mention of the CT600 covering the 9 months 5 days.

Your sponsor has therefore failed to provide all of the specified evidence for those receiving income from employment and/or share in a limited company based in the UK. Your sponsor’s CT600 does not cover the last financial year of the company and therefore the other co-dependent documents are not in accordance with the requirement of Appendix FM (SE).

When the documents were returned, the CT600 was there, in the section entitled Company Tax Return. A receipt to show that this had been submitted to HMRC was also recorded.. All of the documents relate to the financial year in question.

If that is the case, then it is worth asking the ECO/ECM to review the decision, rather than make a new application ( with its associated costs).

A couple of points that might help: Did you explain the two CT600s in any covering letter, by any chance ? That would help.

In any letter to the ECO/ECM, refer to the fact that the ECO should have a copies of both CT600s on file, as he was obliged to take a copy of all documents submitted, in case there is an appeal against the refusal decision.

Explain that the second CT600 was in the bundle of returned documents, so you are sure that it was submitted.

There should be a checklist of documents on file, completed by VFS, and signed by your wife , on submission. That may also refer to the two CT600s

Tony M

Edited December 10, 2014 by ThaiVisaExpress

[theoldgit]

I've split this into a separate topic.

[ilovepayingukvisafees]

I did not specifically mention that there were two tax returns. Both returns were in the same section in my file along with the receipt of filing with HMRC.

The checklist returned itemizes the first CT600 but makes no mention of the second.

[Tony M]

You may have to rely on the ECO having taken a copy of the original document.

In addition, I think that the ECO could have deferred the application to ask for the missing document, unless there were other reasons for refusal. The ECO has discretion to use evidential flexibility (ask for further documentation), and the rules say :

D. (a) In deciding an application in relation to which this Appendix states that specified documents must be provided, the Entry Clearance Officer or Secretary of State (“the decision-maker”) will consider documents that have been submitted with the application, and will only consider documents submitted after the application where sub-paragraph (b ) or (e) applies. (b ) If the applicant:

(i) Has submitted:

(aa) A sequence of documents and some of the documents in the sequence have been omitted (e.g. if one bank statement from a series is missing);

(bb) A document in the wrong format (for example, if a letter is not on letterhead paper as specified); or

(cc) A document that is a copy and not an original document; or

(dd) A document which does not contain all of the specified information; or

(ii) Has not submitted a specified document,

the decision-maker may contact the applicant or his representative in writing or otherwise, and request the document(s) or the correct version(s). The material requested must be received at the address specified in the request within a reasonable timescale specified in the request.

(c ) The decision-maker will not request documents where he or she does not anticipate that addressing the error or omission referred to in sub-paragraph (b ) will lead to a grant because the application will be refused for other reasons.

If you would like to contact us at Thai Visa Express ( we are forum sponsors), we may be able to assist.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Tony M

[tonyk]

Simply you have not provided a full 12 month year of bank statements, tax returns etcetera but two short years details ie two tax returns covering two years not 12 whole months of trading. Therefore the requirements of FM-SE are not met. The fact that the company has been in operation just over 12 months is not relevant. They require a full 12 month year.

[Tony M]

tonyk may be right, but you do say that your accounts covered a full year. The guidance says :

For those employed as a director of a specified limited company in the UK, the relevant financial year(s) will be that covered by the Company Tax Return CT600 and corresponds to the 12-month accounting year of the company.

It would be best if you can post the refusal notice here, so that we can see the ECO's reasoning, rather than just his final refusal reason. If you do so, then firstly remove all personal identifying data from the refusal notice.

Edited December 11, 2014 by Tony M

[ilovepayingukvisafees]

Thank you for your replies.

@tonyk - just to clarify, as maybe I did not make this abundantly clear in my earlier posts. The two CT600's cover the full financial year of the company and correlate to the exact dates of all of the other documents submitted in this application.

Where a tax year is longer than full calendar year, two CT600s must be filed. As far as I am aware the only thing I have not done is to explain this in a covering letter etc in the application.

@Tony M - thank you for your offer to assist. I have already instructed a firm in London to act on my behalf, as this is where I am based.

I am unable to upload and block out the names at the moment given the file format etc. I have been advised that this is a clear cut case; no other reason for refusal has been provided.

My understanding is that no other reason can be lodged if it is not in the refusal letter.

[Tony M]

Thank you for your replies.

@tonyk - just to clarify, as maybe I did not make this abundantly clear in my earlier posts. The two CT600's cover the full financial year of the company and correlate to the exact dates of all of the other documents submitted in this application.

Where a tax year is longer than full calendar year, two CT600s must be filed. As far as I am aware the only thing I have not done is to explain this in a covering letter etc in the application.

@Tony M - thank you for your offer to assist. I have already instructed a firm in London to act on my behalf, as this is where I am based.

I am unable to upload and block out the names at the moment given the file format etc. I have been advised that this is a clear cut case; no other reason for refusal has been provided.

My understanding is that no other reason can be lodged if it is not in the refusal letter.

Are you appealing against the decision, or is the firm contacting the Embassy on your behalf ?

The UKVI can add reasons for refusal if you have not appealed. Once an appeal is lodged, then that is not possible, but that doesn't mean that they will do so as, if there are no other reasons anyway, then they can't be added.

Please let us all know the outcome.

[tonyk]

Hi Tony M I doubt we will hear again from the OP but surely it is clear that FM-SE requires that a full 12 months bank statements, trading records etcetera for the

last available tax year are required not that the company has been trading for one calendar year. I wish the OP luck but I think he is on a losing wicket.

[Tony M]

tonyk, I'm confused. The OP says that all documentation for the company tax year was provided ( apart from the fact that the ECO apparently did not see, or accept, one of the two CT600s covering that same company tax year). That would seem to indicate that all of the other documentation required under FM-SE was submitted. In this case, surely the trading (calendar) year is the company tax year.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Tony M

[ilovepayingukvisafees]

Hi Tony K,

I have submitted every single document listed in the FM-SE.

The bank statements cover the entire period of CT600

The salary payments are visible going from the company bank account into my personal account

Registration of company

Annual audited accounts

Current appointment report from companies house

VAT registration

Payslips

P60

etc

The trading year was 1 year and 5 days. A CT600 can only cover a calendar year. Therefore we submitted 1 x CT600 (short) covering the first three months and 1 CT600 (detailed) covering the remaining 9 months and 5 days.

Given that our first application failed through my incorrect interpretation of the rules, I made 100% sure that I got it right this time. They made an error, not me.

I may well be on a dodgy wicket but that is because the umpire was not looking in the right direction.

[ilovepayingukvisafees]

After ten months of emails with my MP and the Home Office/ UKVI, including the refusal not being overturned and waiting for a tribunal hearing next year, we have now had the refusal overturned.

As much as it pains me to say, I would recommend anyone applying under categories F & G to use the services of an agent. The entire process has ultimately cost me in excess of £10,000 (including tax allowances, additional staff, cost of two homes etc)

We submitted every document on the list, however, unless your are a mindreader, you will probably not know know the format with which the ECO prefers to read these documents.

There is a clear directive within UK embassies worldwide to refuse any applications that are not exactly to the ECO's liking. With unrealistic immigration targets not being met, the government have few avenues to curb the flow of foreign persons.

Through all of the conversations that I have had with immigration lawyers, UKVI/ Home Office representatives and various MP's, Bangkok is one of the worst offenders for this.

I would also advise those looking at an appeal to submit a new application for the same reason. Even using the services of a respected firm of immigration lawyers in London, the appeal was refused and it was only through the hard work of my MP and the MP account manager that we avoided this going to an unecessary tribunal.

[jacksam]

Good post. Sounds like you have been through the ringer. Good luck in future. I'm AU but wanted to post as your Avatar is a ripper. My biggest grin for me today.

Hear lot of hard stories about the process you went through. You UK guys should start a thread in pubs forum . Something like " best avatar to describe settlement visa to UK"

[Trevor1809]

Since when has it been necessary to supply company bank statements? I am not aware that you are required to supply these. When will this BS end. You send a tax return, audited accounts, P60s, pay slips to prove that you exceed the minimum salary and still they find a reason to turn you down. Absolutely disgraceful.

Come on here and say that the UK Immigration service is not fit for purpose and a host of people on TV will dump on you for being totally unreasonable.

[bobrussell]

It is not fit for purpose as is shown by the inspections carried out by the Inspector of Borders/UKBA. It is a disaster in so many ways and has made only minor improvements. Customer service is almost non-existent and even with the intervention of an MP, performance is inadequate to say the least.

Thankfully most people with good applications never find this out. Those issued visas that were not entitled are clearly going to stay quiet!

The moment things go wrong it can be devastating how little effort is made to put things right.

The golden rule is to go for a new application covering any points in the refusal document, don't bother trying to fight the system, it does not work most of the time!

Reasons? Political pressure, inadequate training, inadequate IT, inadequate resources and a knowledge that most complainants will just give up in the end! Some of the staff are at their wits end, many have given up trying!

Thankfully the only unresolved issue for us is the failure to issue a friend with an EEA Family Permit. I cannot take this further as they have vowed never to bother travelling to the UK despite the family 'millions' so they don't care any more. Still we will be heading to one of their Swiss properties for a holiday!