Re apply UK spouse visa after refusal

[Tony M]

How hard is it for an ECO to phone/write, email an applicant that has spent over a grand to request/demand the other six months of bank statements? It is not their place to sort out a poor application but why not spend a couple of minutes helping where possible?

The system is becoming even more adversarial IMO. ECO refusing on grounds that can be easily cleared up because he or she can, applicants trying to second guess what the ECO is going to find fault with.

The system should be there to aid the genuine applicant and weed out the bad ones. Clearly not to the point that a lot more resources are required but absolutely to the point of being fair to everyone!

You are quite right. If this had been an application for an Australian settlement visa, then the visa officer would have done exactly that. Also you would have been given your case officer's name and contact details, so that problems like this could be sorted out quickly. In addition, the Australian Embassy still holds "open" meetings once a week, where an applicant/sponsor can go to meet, and discuss any problems, with their case officer.

Interesting to note that while visa officers from other Embassies give their names, contact details and face to face meetings, the ECO's at UKVI now don't even give their initials on the refusal notice. They are now just "numbers". They really don't want any interaction with their "customers", do they ?

[bobrussell]

I consider the system is at fault and has always creaked at the seams. Implementing a sensible (albeit limited) system for dealing with minor paperwork issues would save a lot of extra work and cost for UKVI at a later stage.

ECO's have absolutely no discretion when it comes to granting or refusing an application and I agree with this. Their job is to identify those that comply and those that don't.

It is UKVI overall that needs to sort things out and I believe that can be done within the present laws. If not, it must be reported up the chain of command. The law determines who can and who cannot come into the country.

I accept I am dreaming of a world where the priority is to get to the right decision and not the real world! I am making sure I am a pain in the backside of the UKVI as this is the only way I can fight the stupidity of some aspects of the system!

[ukguy51]

7by7

Yes new account upon returning work. Its all a play on words really. April 6th 2014 to April 5th 2015 is the latest full financial year. My tax return fell into this period and is classed as my yearly tax return. This was accepted by ECO as just that and covered the £18,600. This was my total earnings for that tax year all be it I only worked part of it. Why did he not refuse the tax return being it was not based on a full year HMRC do ?

9.1. Category F: Last full financial year
9.1.1. Where the applicant’s partner (and/or the applicant if they are in the UK with permission to work) is in self-employment, or is the director of a specified limited company in the UK, at the date of application, they can use income from the last full financial year to meet the financial requirement​

My income came within the full financial year not all of it.

Para 7 (e) of Appendix FM-SE, quoted in Para 9.6.1 of the financial requirement appendix, says "(e) Where the person holds or held a separate business bank account(s), bank statements for the same 12-month period as the tax return(s)."​

So if my part of work falls into that period and is classed as earnings in the last full financial year, then surely the statement would reflect the same ?

[7by7]

Even though you were not working the full year, your tax return did cover the whole year; or at least it should have done!

When I stopped being self employed in December 2010 I still had to complete an SA return for the whole of 2010/11, in which I included my employed earnings and tax paid via PAYE from January to April 2011 in order to calculate what tax I still owed for the year.

Surely you did the same so that your total income minus allowances and therefore tax due for the whole year could be calculated.

I'm sorry, but Para 7 (e) is quite clear; you used self employment income from the full year 2014/15, even though you were not working for a large part of it; therefore your should have provided bank statements for the entire 12 months, the period covered by your tax return, not just the last 5.

Whether or not the ECO should have contacted you to ask for them is moot. They didn't, and were not obliged to.

I cannot say whether this will be the basis of a successful appeal or not; which is why you need to talk to a level 3 OISC advisor or an immigration solicitor.

Having said that; what you say makes perfect sense; unfortunately this financial requirement, introduced by the last coalition government and fully supported by the current Tory one, is not based on logic!

It's based on political expediency. Cameron and his advisor's thinking appeared to be "The country is concerned about immigration; Most immigrants come from the EEA, but we can't do anything about that. So we'll make family immigration far more difficult and hope the country is fooled into thinking we've done something."

Edited August 22, 2015 by 7by7

[7by7]

Maybe someone (100% sure of their application) suing the UKVI for damages and costs would be the catalyst required to make them sit and at least be a tad helpful !

Remember this is government policy; UKVI have to do what their political masters tell them.

There are appeals going through the courts, and have been since this requirement was introduced in July 2012.

But it will take a ruling from the European Court before the government change anything; and even if they lose there they may just ignore the ruling!

[ukguy51]

7by7

yes i covered the whole year in my tax return as I was receiving sick pay for some of it and although not taxable had to declair it. That was at the time being paid into my cash account, i can produce 12 months of them but obviously have nothing what so ever to do with earnings relied apon for the £18,600. I do understand where your coming from about the statements for 12 months but I just do not have them for the business acount. Hope the MP sorts something when he speaks with the home office.

Looks like if they stick to there guns the wife will not be able to come till may/june next year after new tax return and I have enough statements. Another Grand down the pan even though I make enough to satisfy and proved it with bank statements T May will have one more she will stick on her figures of lowering immigration. Yes totally agree on the EEA I stand out side my shop sometimes having a smoke listen to groups of eastern Europeans walking by talking in their language happy as larry and my wife is the other side of the world it sole destroying.

[ukguy51]

Benroon

Copies of what ?

The business acount was not open the full year only when I started business and returned to work after long illness.

Can not produce something that never existed.

[7by7]

The more information you post, the more I feel that you have misunderstood the requirements and need professional advice on this.

Hope the MP sorts something when he speaks with the home office.

However sympathetic he may be, he cannot make the Home Office ignore the rules.

The more information you post, the more I feel that you have misunderstood the requirements and need professional advice on this.

[ukguy51]

7by7

No one is asking him to get anyone to ignore rules.

He as I do thinks that seeing I did supply enough evidence required to meet the £18,600 in earnings and tax records and gave all I could on the bank statements and that it was two government departments that caused the other two parts that got me the refusal, is trying to find out what I need to do next. I do not expect any special favours just advice to get the other side of this mine field.

Some people can read through acres of rules and understand them perfectly some like me read it different. I read both 3.2.2 and (e) Where the person holds or held a separate business bank account(s), bank statements for the same 12-month period as the tax return(s).

Had I had the bank account on April 5th 2014 I would have given the statements from that day, I didn't so put a cover letter to explain. I am not sure had I put the cash account statements up to opening the business account it would not have made any difference still refused.

I do understand what you are saying 7by7 it is clear your a lot more experienced in these matters Bank account has to be open a full year and statements have to be 12 months. So like I said in my post looks like another year apart from my wife because I cant produce 6 months of blank statements.

[Tony M]

It really shouldn't be this difficult to interpret immigration rules, should it ? It seems very unfair that applicants and sponsors, and many others, cannot understand the requirements. Especially when the application fee is so high, and it's so difficult to obtain free advice ( or any advice from UKVI).

I have sympathy with the sponsor, especially as he provided business bank statements which are not even a mandatory requirement. That being so, a business can open a business bank account at any time during a business year (it is the evidence that the business was operating for the full financial year that is important, and this was submitted), and produce statements for the period of the financial year that the bank account was active. I think that it is the business that must be operating for a full financial year, not the business bank account. In theory, the sponsor could have said that there was not even a business account, and it would not have been held against him as there is no requirement to provide one. So, the sponsor is being penalised for providing something that he didn't really need to. Plus, as he says, the period covered by the statements actually shows that the financial threshold was reached. Penalising the sponsor for this seems unreasonable. Had it been an application from a sponsor who is a director of his own company, then the business account is mandatory, but this sponsor is a sole trader, not a limited company.

But having declared the business account, the ECO has penalised him, even though 5 bank statements instead of 12 make no difference whatsoever to the fact that the sponsor qualifies financially. I hope the sponsor's MP gets a result, and the decision is overturned.

The sponsor should be aware of the 28 day limit on submitting an appeal, if he has it in mind to go down that route.

[ukguy51]

Tony M

Thanks for support and post

I do understand the 28 days rule on appeal hence I asked MP to please bare this in mind. So far in the 3 days he has been involved after the refusal two of the resons on refusal have been rectified (both government departments faults).

Like you I can not see if I meet the requirement and have shown that in my tax return and in the bank statements I could proved also I have paid tax on the amount well over the £18,600 I should have to wait another year for a few more pieces of paper.

[tonyk]

uklguy51 I sincerely apologise that you were upset by my post please believe me that my intention was not that at all. I do believe that you have a very good case and it is logical. Unfortunately the rules for the self-employed are, in my opinion, unduly harsh. Incidentally I do not work for UKVI or any government department. I wish you every success.

[ukguy51]

uklguy51 I sincerely apologise that you were upset by my post please believe me that my intention was not that at all. I do believe that you have a very good case and it is logical. Unfortunately the rules for the self-employed are, in my opinion, unduly harsh. Incidentally I do not work for UKVI or any government department. I wish you every success.

No offence taken Tony and thanks for wishes.

[7by7]

I agree that the rules, and even the guidance, can be difficult to interpret; Indeed it seems from what TonyM, who knows far more than I, is saying that I have got it wrong in this case.

For which I apologise.

I also strongly agree, and have said so many times, that the financial requirement rules are unfair; especially for the self employed.

Ukguy51, I wish you the best of luck and hope you get the right result.

[ukguy51]

I agree that the rules, and even the guidance, can be difficult to interpret; Indeed it seems from what TonyM, who knows far more than I, is saying that I have got it wrong in this case.

For which I apologise.

I also strongly agree, and have said so many times, that the financial requirement rules are unfair; especially for the self employed.

Ukguy51, I wish you the best of luck and hope you get the right result.

7by7

Thank you for your comment and advice, I have taken onboard all you have said and appreciate your input. It is frustrating that ECO or ECM more to the point cannot use a simple Logic and understanding. If the evidence is there and is genuine then a few missing bank statements that never existed and are not relevant to the £18,600 should not fall for refusal.

This is dealing with a families lives' and it should be upmost import that scams should be weeded out and genuine let in. Tick box 30 minute look overs are just not acceptable ( and a grand a pop) and lead to bad cases getting through. The risk of fraud increases once dodgy visa agents know how to please the ECO and us honest get rejected. It is really scary as in my case that the ECO did not check with government departments on the information I supplied in favour of a quick refusal in this day and age of border security.

Again thanks 7by7, I will keep the post updated as I receive advice back from the MP.

[ukguy51]

Oh forgot to add TonyM I did contact UKVI for advice on the bank statement issue. Guess what ? they linked me back to the very part I did not understand and asked the question about,

This is what they sent me..........

Dear **********

Thank you for contacting the UK Visas and Immigrations international
enquiry service.

In regards to your enquiry please be informed that your bank statement
should be for the same period as your tax return. Please check the guidance
on our website

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/45
2965/Immigration_Directorate_Instruction_Appendix_FM_1_7_Financial_Requireme
nt_August_2015.pdf.​

For any further details, or should you need to contact us again please
refer to our website at https://ukvi-international.faq-help.com/ (select
appropriate country, click next and then select ‘E-Mail form’ and
complete as instructed.) We will aim to come back to you within 1 day.

~

Really helpful. Seems like throw us a Grand and you takes your chance. you will get the answer after you pay us. you might not like it though!

​

Tax return was made up from money I earnt that year, statements I produced covered said money. 1/11/2014 to 5/04/2015 nothing before due to illness. No business bank before. You think hang on common sense he has proved he earnt well over £18,600 in just 5 months he was ill before and we have the proof of that grant visa. After all Ms May's objective was to ensure we make enough to support our spouse, do not disagree we should although should have been set at minimum wage though.

I really cannot understand when she appealed on this new financial matter why the judges sitting did not pick up on it was a hypocritical argument from her and a waste of our tax money. Our spouses are not allowed any recourse to public funds for 5 years so we would have to support our partners. How did she even get heard when she states she is doing it to save public funds?

You know when it falls for refusal on small points it is only a temporary Visa for 33 months you have to put another in then so it could fall for refusal then if a small issue is not rectified. Your spouse is not allowed any public funds for the 5 year temp period before ILR. Now we even have to pay for their health care during that period again do not disagree with that. Where's the risk Ms T ? No the real issue here is the vast amount of money the Home Office make and refusing at the drop of a hat to keep immigration figures down.

Rant Over lol

[bobrussell]

Pretty much every complaint made to UKVI regarding our friends EEA Permit has been replied to. Not once has the reply been of any value in clearing up what the problems were.

UKVI have hidden behind data protection laws, sympathy that we did not get the result that was wanted, advice that a further application can be made but recommending legal advice from a regulated source.

What was required was a quick phone call to request any missing documents (if there were any) and for the ECO to read the application properly! For an EEA Family Permit the rules state that applications should be 'facilitated' as it is a right where an applicant meets the requirements.

Someone paying over a grand should have a degree of assistance built in. It is only fair and reasonable to expect some degree of 'facilitation'.

An applicant that cannot demonstrate they comply will still be refused. An applicant that has made an error or two would, at least be informed in advance of a refusal, so where possible issues can be corrected.

If in doubt someone should pull their fingers out of whatever orifice they have stuck them in to produce a functional help and advice service associated with the website. The help is cr+p, the advice is absent and the total inability to contact an ECO is the cherry on the top.

UKVI should employ an experienced advisor to produce good, clear guidance at all stages on the application form. It should not take an immigration expert, legal advice or reliance on forum advice to give a genuine applicant a fighting chance of filling out a form successfully. Forms should be simplified and clarified as well.

They are not there to do everything for an applicant but they could do a heck of a lot better IMO!

My rant over!

Edited August 24, 2015 by bobrussell

[Tony M]

I agree that the rules, and even the guidance, can be difficult to interpret; Indeed it seems from what TonyM, who knows far more than I, is saying that I have got it wrong in this case.

For which I apologise.

I also strongly agree, and have said so many times, that the financial requirement rules are unfair; especially for the self employed.

Ukguy51, I wish you the best of luck and hope you get the right result.

7x7, I didn't mean that you had got it wrong, only that I was giving my interpretation of the FM-SE. It is ambiguous, and it shouldn't be because it is specified evidence. It should specify exactly what is required, not make an applicant guess, and have to pay 1,000 GBP to see if they guessed correctly.

[Tony M]

Pretty much every complaint made to UKVI regarding our friends EEA Permit has been replied to. Not once has the reply been of any value in clearing up what the problems were.

UKVI have hidden behind data protection laws, sympathy that we did not get the result that was wanted, advice that a further application can be made but recommending legal advice from a regulated source.

What was required was a quick phone call to request any missing documents (if there were any) and for the ECO to read the application properly! For an EEA Family Permit the rules state that applications should be 'facilitated' as it is a right where an applicant meets the requirements.

Someone paying over a grand should have a degree of assistance built in. It is only fair and reasonable to expect some degree of 'facilitation'.

An applicant that cannot demonstrate they comply will still be refused. An applicant that has made an error or two would, at least be informed in advance of a refusal, so where possible issues can be corrected.

If in doubt someone should pull their fingers out of whatever orifice they have stuck them in to produce a functional help and advice service associated with the website. The help is cr+p, the advice is absent and the total inability to contact an ECO is the cherry on the top.

UKVI should employ an experienced advisor to produce good, clear guidance at all stages on the application form. It should not take an immigration expert, legal advice or reliance on forum advice to give a genuine applicant a fighting chance of filling out a form successfully. Forms should be simplified and clarified as well.

They are not there to do everything for an applicant but they could do a heck of a lot better IMO!

My rant over!

The current "system" is grossly unfair.You cannot get correct advice from UKVI, nor can you expect any discretion from the ECO. If you make an error, as this applicant and sponsor may have done, the application will be refused. But if an ECO makes an error in a refusal decision, and I can refer specifically to many such errors, then the Embassy will just re-issue a refusal notice with new or amended reasons for refusal. That would appear to be a double standard, in that ECO's can get several tries at getting it right, but an applicant, who maybe cannot understand the ambiguous "rules", does not.

[ukguy51]

I think as 7by7 has said in previous posts the eco do as they are told its the home office at fault and it is them who just dont give a stuff.

I can't see why visa's take so long when all it really boils down to is tick boxing. I do not see this job is highly professional when it comes to the home office saying this "x is not there refuse do not do any work, up to the applicant if they screwed up tough! if all the x's there sod all we can do have to grant".

These staff do not have to make decision on if they believe someone is telling the truth, no interview, no checks, no call, no email, no interaction, no count for good past travel history to the sponsor who supports wife on 4 previous six month visa's paid all the flights on top of day to day requirements, not ever using the health service. ( I wont say used public funds because as a visitor as well as a non EEU immigrant spouse you aint gonna get shi* now or in the next 5 years, but hey walk in from EU we cant stop you bring your wife even if non EEU, do a bit of work and if your low paid we will top it up with tax payers dosh, health care its free go help yourselves, jump on the housing list we will sort it.

The home office may as well trained monkeys to do it. I think reading so much on this site now we aim the blame at the ECO but in fact he is ordered and I am sure must hit targets on refusal for Ms T's immigration figures. She is the one who needs us to constantly bombard her with our complaints and let the Conservative government know how much she really is hated.

We are the 2nd class citizens of the EU and we get treated less by our own government than any one in these EU states.

Edited August 24, 2015 by ukguy51

[wooloomooloo]

I can't see why visa's take so long when all it really boils down to is tick boxing.

As an aside, you make an excellent point, ukguy51.

When my wife and I attended what was then the Croydon Public Enquiry Office to submit my wife's ILR application, from the time the officer took the application form and evidence folder to being granted ILR was just twenty minutes duration.

Okay, an ILR application isn't quite as chunky as a settlement visa but surely can't take that much longer to process.

[ukguy51]

UKVI clearly won't help and your MP will simply tow a party line so get ready for the standard pre-scripted response, so you'll get no relief there either - Anne Robinson is a better bet (seriously). The last thing a government office wants is poor TV exposure - looked what happened in the passport fiasco - it only got sorted when it hit the TV screens!

Alreadt there mate. however it will not stop at a mug paying another grand to the crooks. Time to stand up. I do have human rights and more so my little man my hero who the eco knew about deserves more. what is more important a few missing statments that did not show any less than i already covered the threshold or a private family life my family built. hmmmmm good old Teresa. My son deserves more he misses his step mum.

He has gone through most in life we all have no idea but he has come out of it and my wife loves him dearly like her own how dare a country my grandfather landed on Normandy for to give us our freedom have that taken away by our own. God bless my grandfather and Churchill you Teresa May.

[ukguy51]

See how sad refusal is, my son born Downs look at the real picture i cry looking at this over home office figures to slow down imigration. My son My Wife we are a real family. eco had this pic and more how bloody genuine do you need ?????

[ukguy51]

i will go viral i will not use my son to gain anything more than his step mum who he loves home. i would like the support from all to push home we have familys and time for real change

[durhamboy]

Totally agree with all the sentiments expressed above.

Unfortunately our immigration system has become so convoluted that fairness and compassion from the Home Office has gone out of the window. Yes, I agree that it is the Home Office to blame not the ECOs. The problem is that the Home Office is not really accountable to anyone. I sued them once and the judge was sympathetic to the facts of my case but I lost and had to pay costs because the judge said that the Home Office did not owe a duty of care to either myself or my then wife.

I have just done my current wife's FLR application. 74 page form + £649 fee + £500 NHS surcharge + 100 mile trip to get a BRP (if successful). All for a 2 1/2 year visa in addition to all the hoops and costs we went through for the initial settlement visa. Quite sobering to think we are only about half way through the whole process! Meanwhile, and yes 7by7 I'll say it again, people from the former Soviet block just roll up at Dover and stay for as long as they like without paying a penny and without having to pass any tests.

Stop the world I want to get off!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bobrussell]

The system does need more, independent scrutiny IMO. 95% of applications are successful but how many of these should be successful?

Without an open system of checking there is no way of determining how effective ECO's are working. The Independent inspector of the Border Agency (as was) has shown up many, many flaws in UKBA/UKVI working.

I can only assume that the bizarre decisions leading to rejection are also leading to numbers of non-qualifying applicants being granted visas.

The UKVI are pretty much untouchable much of the time. So was the UKBA and so is the Home Office. All have been described as not fit for purpose!

Frustratingly this seems very unlikely to change!

[7by7]

I think as 7by7 has said in previous posts the eco do as they are told its the home office at fault and it is them who just dont give a stuff.

I can't see why visa's take so long when all it really boils down to is tick boxing. I do not see this job is highly professional when it comes to the home office saying this "x is not there refuse do not do any work, up to the applicant if they screwed up tough! if all the x's there sod all we can do have to grant".

Which is basically what the system now is! Nearly all discretion has effectively been removed from the ECOs.

BTW, about ten years ago an ex ECO told me that on average settlement applications took 10 to 15 minutes each to process. I imagine it's less now as all they have to do is check the required paperwork is all there.

I can understand your frustration; but please concentrate on what needs to be done to correct what appears to be a wrong decision in your wife's case rather than going off a, frankly, ill informed rant about the EEA (not EU, they're different).

.....but hey walk in from EU we cant stop you bring your wife even if non EEU, do a bit of work and if your low paid we will top it up with tax payers dosh, health care its free go help yourselves, jump on the housing list we will sort it.

Not strictly true. Any one who has paid the requisite NICs, whether they be British, a non EEA immigrant or an EEA immigrant, is, of course, able to claim and receive any and all contribution based benefits to which they are entitled.

EEA nationals who have yet to obtain Permanent Residence are entitled to more public funds than non EEA immigrants who have yet to obtain ILR; but there are limits. Basically, EEA nationals without PR must not become a burden upon the state.

EEA nationals cannot simply waltz into the UK and immediately be given the full range of public funds a British person may be entitled to; this includes social housing. They have to meet other qualifications over and above those a British national needs to.

Anyone who is habitually resident in the UK is entitled to NHS treatment. EEA nationals get this for free, or rather paid for through their or their partner's taxes if working plus of course the VAT on most of the things they buy.

That non EEA nationals, especially the family members of British citizens, now have to pay an extra £200 p.a. over and above these taxes is, IMHO, a scandal.

I think reading so much on this site now we aim the blame at the ECO but in fact he is ordered and I am sure must hit targets on refusal for Ms T's immigration figures.

I assume you meant Mrs M(ay)'s targets.

There are no targets.

Though the tougher rules and higher fees for family immigration and some other categories are obviously designed to reduce the figures so that the government can tell the British public that they are 'doing something' to reduce immigration. Even though the reduction to the total figures is statistically insignificant!

Incidentally, don't just blame the Tories for this; it all started under Labour; the Coalition and now just the Tories are simply carrying on what Labour began.

We are the 2nd class citizens of the EU and we get treated less by our own government than any one in these EU states.

British citizens have the same right to live in other EEA states that other EEA nationals have to live in the UK. There are approximately 2 million Brits doing just that (source).

Over 30,000 of those Brits are receiving public funds in those other EEA states (source).

[bobrussell]

Our holiday plans were mucked up when UKVI screwed up the EEA Family Permit application for the wife of a Swiss national . They can screw that up as well! An EEA/Swiss national cannot automatically bring in a non-EU spouse unless the permit application is processed properly!

The system is perfectly capable of failing all classes of applicant!!

[ukguy51]

Thanks all for your support and comments it has helped and yes calmed down from a bad day yesterday just so frustrated but more focused now.

Durhamboy about sums it up when a judge says the home office owes nobody a duty of care I think lack of a decent service for your money is another trait.

Sorry 7by7 I know I went off on one about Europe. I was just trying to get across that if you go live in Europe and bring your non EEU wife in get a resident permit then you can bring her here after about 3 months without this farce we have to go through based in the UK. I read on free movement site yesterday that the home office lost a case in December at the European Courts but still continue to apply rules not laid down in that hearing. Just seems to be a lot fairer in European states than here. Was not trying to be knowledgeable on Europe I apologise.

[ukguy51]

My last letter to MP. Hope this now covers the last of 3 refusal items.

Dear ********

Thank you for your email sorry I did sound a bit impatient on Friday just having a hard time with all this. On a positive note I have over the weekend gone through the Appendix FM-SE and had helpful advice from a Visa blog site. I would like to bring this section to your attention and would like to suggest that I think the ECO has enforced a rule that simply is not there.

In Appendix FM-SE it states

9.3.3. The evidence submitted must cover the relevant financial year(s) most recently ended. A self-assessment tax return may include provisional figures, where the return explains why this is so and how the figures were arrived at, and in which case a covering letter explaining this and how any provisional figures tie in with other material submitted, e.g. audited or unaudited accounts, may be helpful. This means that a sponsor wishing to rely on earnings from self-employment as a sole trader, as a partner or in a franchise will need to arrange to file their self assessment tax return to HMRC on a timescale geared to meeting this requirement of the Immigration Rules rather than the deadline set for UK tax purposes.

My Question here is if provisional figures are allowed how would bank statements cover this ?

9.3.8. Self-employed income can be cash-in-hand if the correct tax is paid. In line with paragraph 3.1.5 of this guidance, it would generally be expected that the person’s business or personal bank statements would fully reflect all gross (pre-tax) cash income. Flexibility may only be applied where the decision-maker is satisfied that the cash income relied upon is fully evidenced by the relevant tax return(s) and the accounts information.

This is my main point in this paragraph, the words “generally expected” does not mean must however on my cover letter attached to the bank statements I supplied I did say these statements and my cash takings (these showed on my accounts submitted, which although the eco ignored were signed off by an accountant) make up the figure in my tax return. The mere fact that someone does not have to supply bank statements although the ECO would “Expect them” is In my favour, I did supply bank statements to cover over the £18,600. Under this paragraph the Visa should have been granted or what is the point of this in Appendix FM-SE. As it says the ECO can only apply flexibility if the figures are on the tax return and accounts mine were and the ECO had documented proof to back that up.

I think now this clears up the last of all three matters refused on. It states if all requirements under the immigrations rules are met then the Visa must be issued.

Hope this helps ******* and look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards

***********

Still awaiting home office to call MP

​