UK Visa refusal

[ramayer1]

Hi folks I have just had my wife's spouse/settlement Visa application refused with what seems like a mistake by myself not submitting the correct supporting documents to pass the financial requirements.

The reason seems clear that I didn’t provide payslips as I thought my P60 for the year and bank statements were enough as well as a letter from my employer.

I have a salary over the threshold and can provide the payslips but am now left with a dilemma as to appeal or re apply which will cost another £1600 with the health charge although the first one will be refunded.

Does anyone have any advice as to which route I should take, it’s such a shame they can’t just give you at least one chance to resubmit documents considering the fee.

Any advice welcome, thanks.

[DipStick]

Taking into account your payment will be refunded AND you admit it was your mistake, I suggest you bite the bullet and reapply going the appeal route will likely drag on and on.

[ramayer1]

I think so only the health charge of £600 is refunded I think i will loose the £100 application fee.

[bobrussell]

£1000 application fee, I assume!

You can try to submit additional paperwork and ask for the decision to be reviewed. The only argument I can see for this being successful is that it would have been reasonable for the ECO to contact you for the missing documents. They are able but clearly unwilling to do this!

You made the error but provided sufficient evidence to show that the application is likely to have succeeded had the missing documents been provided. ECO's have no obligation under the rules, to contact an applicant if they consider there is little chance of success. I believe they have a moral responsibility to do so in cases like this.

Unfortunately the rules state that an ECO may contact the applicant for missing documents, not that they should or must! The other side of this is he or she must refuse without the required documentation. Most applicants will have limited experience of the system therefore some degree of assistance should be provided where appropriate. Not hand holding but help.

Mean spirited, presumably as a result of guidelines from above! At the fee charged, applicants should be offered a chance to provide reasonable additional documentation.

[ramayer1]

Hi thanks for your reply it's pretty much along the same lines of my thinking, surely a phone call txt or email and a small delay is better than refusing a genuine aplication and causing all thr financial and emotional stress that goes within. You say possible resubmit , where would one send the documents to or would you take them directly to the offices?

[7by7]

To be fair; all the UKVI guidance tells sponsors exactly what evidence is required, depending on how they are meeting the financial requirement.

For example, from the financial requirement appendix (linked to in the general guidance)

5.6. Salaried and non-salaried employment – specified evidence

5.6.1. The evidence required to demonstrate income from salaried employment (and, by virtue of paragraph 18(d), non-salaried employment) is specified in Appendix FM-SE:
2. In respect of salaried employment in the UK (except where paragraph 9 applies), all of the following evidence must be provided:
(a) Payslips covering:
(i) a period of 6 months prior to the date of application if the person has been employed by their current employer for at least 6 months (and where paragraph 13( b ) of this Appendix does not apply); or
(ii) any period of salaried employment in the period of 12 months prior to the date of application if the person has been employed by their current employer for less than 6 months (or at least 6 months but the person does not rely on paragraph 13(a) of this Appendix), or in the financial year(s) relied upon by a self-employed person......

(c ) Personal bank statements corresponding to the same period(s) as the payslips at paragraph 2(a), showing that the salary has been paid into an account in the name of the person or in the name of the person and their partner jointly.....

This information is also in Immigration Rules Appendix FM-SE: family members specified evidence, referred to above and also linked to in the general guidance.

Although the financial requirement form itself does not actually list the required documents; it does on several occasions refer the person completing it to the guidance linked to above.

Ramayer1, it may seem harsh, but thinking "my P60 for the year and bank statements were enough as well as a letter from my employer" is no substitute for actually reading the available guidance.

Had you done so your would not now be £1000+ out of pocket.

My advice is to reapply as I firmly believe arguing that the ECO could have contacted you to say that required, specified documents were missing from the application wont get you anywhere.

[Tony M]

£1000 application fee, I assume!

You can try to submit additional paperwork and ask for the decision to be reviewed. The only argument I can see for this being successful is that it would have been reasonable for the ECO to contact you for the missing documents. They are able but clearly unwilling to do this!

You made the error but provided sufficient evidence to show that the application is likely to have succeeded had the missing documents been provided. ECO's have no obligation under the rules, to contact an applicant if they consider there is little chance of success. I believe they have a moral responsibility to do so in cases like this.

Unfortunately the rules state that an ECO may contact the applicant for missing documents, not that they should or must! The other side of this is he or she must refuse without the required documentation. Most applicants will have limited experience of the system therefore some degree of assistance should be provided where appropriate. Not hand holding but help.

Mean spirited, presumably as a result of guidelines from above! At the fee charged, applicants should be offered a chance to provide reasonable additional documentation.

I agree with everything that you have said. ECOs are relying on case law (determinations in appeals) to justify the fact that they could ask for the missing evidence, but don't have to. I am currently involved in a complaint with the UKVI Complaints Unit about an application that had one missing document. The complaint was based on the fact that there is a very recent appeal determination that appears to indicate that ECOs should ask for missing documentation. To be honest, I wasn't sure that the recent determination actually applies, as it refers to a decision made in 2012, and the guidance on Evidential Flexibility has since been amended. However, I leaned towards the determination being applicable, and the complaint was partially submitted on that ground. UKVI have not said that the determination is not applicable, and that makes me believe that it possibly is. However, they have said that it is not relevant to Appendix FM ( Family Migration) applications as it refers to a PBS (Points Based System) application. I disagree with that, as Evidential Flexibility only exists in PBS and FM applications ( I think), and the determination deals with guidance and policy, not with the law. So, to me, it seems logical that it must apply equally to guidance given in Appendix FM-SE (as quoted by bobrussell above ). I suspect that UKVI are unwilling to admit that the determination applies in FM applications, as that would surely place a considerable burden on them in applications where the documentation is not complete.

So, have a look at the recent determination, and let us have your views. If the OP wants to challenge the refusal, without going down the appeal route, then he should make a complaint to the UKVI Complaints Unit, along the lines of my post here, requesting that UKVI confirm whether the determination applies to current applications under Appendix FM or not.

Have a look at the determination. Please feel free to comment, as I'm a little unsure of whether it applies or not :

Evidential Flexibility appeal determination 1.docx

[ramayer1]

Thanks this is what they sent in relation to your post

[ramayer1]

Hi does anyone here know of an appeal or second application has been successful ?

[bobrussell]

It can be argued that a P60 is perfect evidence of income but in the wrong format. It amazes me that the ECO has stated that you have not requested him or her to exercise discretion. How on earth do you decide on this without the ECO contacting you?

it is good enough evidence to use for a mortgage application and to identify how much tax you have paid. It is a product of payslips! It confirms income so really should be one of the required documents. It summarises total pay and deductions over the year.

"2. P60

Your P60 shows the tax you’ve paid on your salary in the tax year (6 April to 5 April).

If you’re working for your employer on 5 April they must give you a P60. They must provide this by 31 May, on paper or electronically.

You’ll need your P60 to prove how much tax you’ve paid on your salary, eg:

• to claim back overpaid tax
• to apply for tax credits
• as proof of your income if you apply for a loan or a mortgage"

Bizarre that a P60 is ignored!

Mean and petty!

Edited June 23, 2016 by bobrussell

[Tony M]

It can be argued that a P60 is perfect evidence of income but in the wrong format. It amazes me that the ECO has stated that you have not requested him or her to exercise discretion. How on earth do you decide on this without the ECO contacting you?

it is good enough evidence to use for a mortgage application and to identify how much tax you have paid. It is a product of payslips! It confirms income so really should be one of the required documents. It summarises total pay and deductions over the year.

"2. P60

Your P60 shows the tax you’ve paid on your salary in the tax year (6 April to 5 April).

If you’re working for your employer on 5 April they must give you a P60. They must provide this by 31 May, on paper or electronically.

You’ll need your P60 to prove how much tax you’ve paid on your salary, eg:

• to claim back overpaid tax
• to apply for tax credits
• as proof of your income if you apply for a loan or a mortgage"

Bizarre that a P60 is ignored!

Mean and petty!

bobrussell,

This is from a very recent refusal notice, and demonstrates what ECO's think of P60s. But, the ECO didn't seem to be so convinced of his own argument that he actually decided to refuse on this ground. He simply made the inference that he believes the applicant falsified the P60, but the ECO took it no further than that He actually refused the application because the bank statements weren't original, and made no mention of attempted fraud. The ECO says :

I am aware that payslips and P60 forms are easily reproduced by any simple accounting software to indicate any desired amount. This can give the appearance of genuine employment documents enhanced by salaried money being transferred to your sponsor’s bank account and incorporate HMRC tax registration and payments.

The ECO's statement may well form the basis of a complaint, as it seems to be an allegation or an inference that the applicant employed deception, even though the ECO couldn't quite bring himself to say it. Possibly libelous, though, as it appears in the grounds for refusal ? At the very least, it would appear to be the ECO's opinion of the documentation submitted, and that doesn't have any place in a refusal notice if there is nothing substantial to back the allegation up.

[mikebell]

Mean and petty sums it up. ECOs have ONE job - to decide on validity of the paperwork. An application complete in all aspects except one surely deserves a call/email follow-up. They can't be overworked can they?

[beano2274]

A P60 would not have had the current salary on it for months after it was issued, how does the ECO actually know that the applicants husband, in this case the OP, can still meet the threshold, and still receives the same salary as before?

It clearly states pay slips and if the OP has not supplied then the application has rightly been rejected, it is upto the applicant to supply the documentation not rely on the ECO to phone them up requesting basic documents that should have been submitted.

Reapply and bite the bullet.

[Tony M]

A P60 would not have had the current salary on it for months after it was issued, how does the ECO actually know that the applicants husband, in this case the OP, can still meet the threshold, and still receives the same salary as before?

It clearly states pay slips and if the OP has not supplied then the application has rightly been rejected, it is upto the applicant to supply the documentation not rely on the ECO to phone them up requesting basic documents that should have been submitted.

Reapply and bite the bullet.

But was the application rightly rejected ? The appeal determination, posted, above, may well indicate that the ECO is obliged to ask for missing documents. I think it does.

[beano2274]

A P60 would not have had the current salary on it for months after it was issued, how does the ECO actually know that the applicants husband, in this case the OP, can still meet the threshold, and still receives the same salary as before?

It clearly states pay slips and if the OP has not supplied then the application has rightly been rejected, it is upto the applicant to supply the documentation not rely on the ECO to phone them up requesting basic documents that should have been submitted.

Reapply and bite the bullet.

But was the application rightly rejected ? The appeal determination, posted, above, may well indicate that the ECO is obliged to ask for missing documents. I think it does.

Is obliged to ask for missing documents, but does that mean other documents they may require or the basic documents that should have been present upon application.

[Tony M]

A P60 would not have had the current salary on it for months after it was issued, how does the ECO actually know that the applicants husband, in this case the OP, can still meet the threshold, and still receives the same salary as before?

It clearly states pay slips and if the OP has not supplied then the application has rightly been rejected, it is upto the applicant to supply the documentation not rely on the ECO to phone them up requesting basic documents that should have been submitted.

Reapply and bite the bullet.

But was the application rightly rejected ? The appeal determination, posted, above, may well indicate that the ECO is obliged to ask for missing documents. I think it does.

Is obliged to ask for missing documents, but does that mean other documents they may require or the basic documents that should have been present upon application.

It means the documents that are specified in Appendix FM - SE as required evidence, not additional documents that the ECO might want to see for his own consideration.

[7by7]

Mean and petty sums it up. ECOs have ONE job - to decide on validity of the paperwork. An application complete in all aspects except one surely deserves a call/email follow-up. They can't be overworked can they?

First they have to check that the applicant has provided the required evidence. In the OP's case two required pieces of evidence were missing; pay slips and bank statements.

Second they have to check that the evidence provided is genuine.

Third they have to decide whether or not the evidence shows that the applicant meets the requirements if the immigration rules.

Overworked? Maybe in busy posts such as Bangkok. Some time ago a member who used to be an ECO posted that they have approximately 10 minutes to assess a settlement application and make a decision. This was before the current financial requirement was introduced by the coalition government. This requirement means ECOs now have more work to do when assessing a settlement application, but I doubt very much that posts have been provided with additional staff to cover the increased workload.

Remember, too, that ECOs do not make the rules. The rules are set by their political masters.

The tribunal determination posted by Tony M is for a refusal under the PBS. Tony may be correct that this would also apply to FM cases; he does, after all, know more about this subject than most of us; certainly more than I.

However, if I have read that determination correctly, the appeal was allowed because the required information had been provided, but in the wrong format.

In the OP's case, two required sequences of documents were missing completely.

Morally one can argue that the ECO should have contacted the applicant and asked for the missing documents; but legally I don't think they were obliged to.

The onus is, after all, on the applicant to ensure that the application, including the required documentary evidence, is complete and the financial appendix form refers applicants and sponsors to the guidance listing what documents are required.

I am not saying that any of this is fair; regular readers will know of my many objections to this current financial requirement and the evidence required this financial requirement. But the rules are as they are, and until changed we have to make sure we advise people seeking help here how to ensure that they comply with them.

[Tony M]

Mean and petty sums it up. ECOs have ONE job - to decide on validity of the paperwork. An application complete in all aspects except one surely deserves a call/email follow-up. They can't be overworked can they?

First they have to check that the applicant has provided the required evidence. In the OP's case two required pieces of evidence were missing; pay slips and bank statements.

Second they have to check that the evidence provided is genuine.

Third they have to decide whether or not the evidence shows that the applicant meets the requirements if the immigration rules.

Overworked? Maybe in busy posts such as Bangkok. Some time ago a member who used to be an ECO posted that they have approximately 10 minutes to assess a settlement application and make a decision. This was before the current financial requirement was introduced by the coalition government. This requirement means ECOs now have more work to do when assessing a settlement application, but I doubt very much that posts have been provided with additional staff to cover the increased workload.

Remember, too, that ECOs do not make the rules. The rules are set by their political masters.

The tribunal determination posted by Tony M is for a refusal under the PBS. Tony may be correct that this would also apply to FM cases; he does, after all, know more about this subject than most of us; certainly more than I.

However, if I have read that determination correctly, the appeal was allowed because the required information had been provided, but in the wrong format.

In the OP's case, two required sequences of documents were missing completely.

Morally one can argue that the ECO should have contacted the applicant and asked for the missing documents; but legally I don't think they were obliged to.

The onus is, after all, on the applicant to ensure that the application, including the required documentary evidence, is complete and the financial appendix form refers applicants and sponsors to the guidance listing what documents are required.

I am not saying that any of this is fair; regular readers will know of my many objections to this current financial requirement and the evidence required this financial requirement. But the rules are as they are, and until changed we have to make sure we advise people seeking help here how to ensure that they comply with them.

Agreed that the determination refers to documents in the wrong format, but more importantly it refers to the guidance on Evidential Flexibility (which covers documents in the wrong format). The guidance to EF in Appendix FM-SE says (my emphasis) :

evidential flexibility is set out in paragraph D of Appendix FM-SE:

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.

© 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.

I read the determination as saying that the ECO is now obliged to request missing documentation, that is, where the applicant "has not submitted a specified document". I may be wrong, but there is a lot of case law on EF, and it is incredibly confusing. But the determination seems to say that the guidance is different from the law (the immigration rules), and an applicant has a legitimate expectation that the ECO will ask for missing documentation. With that in mind, I can't see any harm in submitting a complaint, even if a new application is made.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Tony M

[bobrussell]

The applicant provided his P60, bank statements showing salary deposits plus a letter confirming salary was provided by his employer.

It is quite possible that the P60 may not cover the right period and therefore may be inadequate. As I read it there is nothing to suggest the ECO felt there was anything fraudulent about the documents provided. If this was considered then the applicant would be facing a potential lengthy ban.

It is quite true that a P60 and payslips can be falsified quite easily so the ECO should be checking the validity with the company payroll department and or HMRC. Do they?

From the information provided the only missing documents are the payslips which presumably add up to the information on the P60. A phone call requiring the submission of the payslips within 7 days would really not have been that onerous IMO! These are life changing applications, large sums of money involved and applicants that have little or no experience of dealing with visa applications.

Really a matter of humanity and fairness than of law.

[7by7]

I did make an error in my previous when I said the OP did not provide his bank statements; he did.

So apologies for that.

However, he did not provide the required payslips; a requirement clearly expressed in all the guidance.

The missing pay slips may very well not "add up to the information on the P60."

P60s do not show the current level of someone's income; they show what that person earned in the previous tax year.

I had a pay rise in April, so my 2015/16 P60 shows a lower income than I have now.

Another example; a sponsor may have been in a high paying job for the first part of the last tax year, but now be unemployed.

So it is not a question of whether or not the P60 is fraudulent, it is a question of whether it shows a true picture of the sponsor's current earnings.

Nothing changed about this when the financial requirement came into being. When my wife applied back in 2000 I had to provide proof of my current earnings. Had I simply provided my last P60, 9 months old when she applied, I am sure she would have been refused on financial grounds.

Of course, one of the absurdities of the financial requirement is that the self employed have to produce their SA statement, accounts etc. for the last complete tax year (or last two depending on which category they are using); which, like a P60, say nothing about their current earnings!

Whether or not the ECO is obliged to ask for missing documents, or merely has the discretion to so do, is open to question.

Certainly, as Tony says, a complaint by the OP will not harm, and may help.

But anyone applying for any form of UK visa should ensure that they read all the guidance first so that they know what documents are required and supply them.

Then this situation wont arise.

[Tony M]

I did make an error in my previous when I said the OP did not provide his bank statements; he did.

So apologies for that.

However, he did not provide the required payslips; a requirement clearly expressed in all the guidance.

The missing pay slips may very well not "add up to the information on the P60."

P60s do not show the current level of someone's income; they show what that person earned in the previous tax year.

I had a pay rise in April, so my 2015/16 P60 shows a lower income than I have now.

Another example; a sponsor may have been in a high paying job for the first part of the last tax year, but now be unemployed.

So it is not a question of whether or not the P60 is fraudulent, it is a question of whether it shows a true picture of the sponsor's current earnings.

Nothing changed about this when the financial requirement came into being. When my wife applied back in 2000 I had to provide proof of my current earnings. Had I simply provided my last P60, 9 months old when she applied, I am sure she would have been refused on financial grounds.

Of course, one of the absurdities of the financial requirement is that the self employed have to produce their SA statement, accounts etc. for the last complete tax year (or last two depending on which category they are using); which, like a P60, say nothing about their current earnings!

Whether or not the ECO is obliged to ask for missing documents, or merely has the discretion to so do, is open to question.

Certainly, as Tony says, a complaint by the OP will not harm, and may help.

But anyone applying for any form of UK visa should ensure that they read all the guidance first so that they know what documents are required and supply them.

Then this situation wont arise.

No argument, 7x7, but sometimes it's not possible to provide the required documents. I am aware of one sponsor, a director of his own company. He is the only person employed in his won company, and has a large income, well above the required threshold. But, although he receives a salary from his own business (or rather, he pays himself a salary), he has never issued himself a pay slip. He meets the financial threshold from dividends alone, and doesn't need to use any of the salary he pays himself to meet the 18,600 GBP a year. He provided P60, and company accounts, showing that he receives a salary, and requested that the ECO accept this evidence that he has a salary, but emphasising that he does not require the salary to meet the threshold. The application is refused because no pay slips were submitted. Yes, he can provide pay slip after the end of the next company tax year, which will be next year. In the meantime, the family is separated. To me, this makes no sense at all.

[7by7]

You are well aware, Tony, that I consider this financial requirement to be an ill thought out, rushed through piece of legislation as absurd as it is unfair.

However, until and unless a future government changes it, extremely unlikely, we have to work with it.

In the example you quote above, could the sponsor not have used his dividends alone, using category F or G as he is also a director of the company, to show he meets the requirement and not mentioned his salary at all?

[Tony M]

You are well aware, Tony, that I consider this financial requirement to be an ill thought out, rushed through piece of legislation as absurd as it is unfair.

However, until and unless a future government changes it, extremely unlikely, we have to work with it.

In the example you quote above, could the sponsor not have used his dividends alone, using category F or G as he is also a director of the company, to show he meets the requirement and not mentioned his salary at all?

The company accounts show the salary paid, unfortunately.

[7by7]

Ok, but as his dividend payments alone met the requirement; how did that matter?

I'm not asking to be argumentative, but because I really want to better my understanding of what is a complicated mess!

[Tony M]

Ok, but as his dividend payments alone met the requirement; how did that matter?

I'm not asking to be argumentative, but because I really want to better my understanding of what is a complicated mess!

It's a good question. It is because Appendix FM-SE says that if a company director receives a salary, then wage slips must be provided. The application contained a request for the ECO to exercise evidential flexibility, and to disregard the salary as it was not required to meet the financial threshold, but the ECO refused the application because, presumably, she had no discretion to do otherwise. It seems pretty nonsensical - if the sponsor received a million a year in dividends, or 10 million a year, but had no wage slips (if he also paid himself a salary), then the financial requirement cannot be met ! And, of course, the applicant cannot re-apply for some time, as the sponsor cannot meet the requirements until he has completed another year's business, with wage slips !

An appeal is being submitted today, so might be able to let you know what the immigration judge says in about a year ! The appeal will include, on human rights grounds, the potential interference with family life, as the applicant and sponsor cannot be together despite the fact that the sponsor earns more than the required 18,600 GBP a year.

[theoldgit]

Well I'll throw something else into the debate, as you know Tony my income is from two pensions, my Civil Service and State Pensions, neither of which supply me with a pay slip.

My Civil Service Pension provides me with an annual P60 on the back of which it is detailed my pension for the current year, no pay slips are issued at all, my bank statements from the IOM just show a credit from HSBC.

My State Pension doesn't provide me with a pay slip and, as I don't get an increase, doesn't provide me with an annual statement, and hasn't done so for four years, again my IOM bank statement just shows a monthly credit from the HSBC.

The initial letter from 2012 and my annual Civil Service Pension statement is sufficient for the Consular Section to confirm my income, though my CSP statement is nearly twelve months old when I submit it, it would be bizarre if they were not sufficient evidence in the event of a Settlement application, though I suspect that common sense would prevail - or would it?

[Tony M]

Well I'll throw something else into the debate, as you know Tony my income is from two pensions, my Civil Service and State Pensions, neither of which supply me with a pay slip.

My Civil Service Pension provides me with an annual P60 on the back of which it is detailed my pension for the current year, no pay slips are issued at all, my bank statements from the IOM just show a credit from HSBC.

My State Pension doesn't provide me with a pay slip and, as I don't get an increase, doesn't provide me with an annual statement, and hasn't done so for four years, again my IOM bank statement just shows a monthly credit from the HSBC.

The initial letter from 2012 and my annual Civil Service Pension statement is sufficient for the Consular Section to confirm my income, though my CSP statement is nearly twelve months old when I submit it, it would be bizarre if they were not sufficient evidence in the event of a Settlement application, though I suspect that common sense would prevail - or would it?

To qualify on pension income, you need only a letter from the pension provider(s) (from DWP for State pension), and one bank statement confirming the pension(s) paid in. It's probably the easiest category to qualify with.

[theoldgit]

To qualify on pension income, you need only a letter from the pension provider(s) (from DWP for State pension), and one bank statement confirming the pension(s) paid in. It's probably the easiest category to qualify with.

Thank you, so no conspiracy theory then - blast.

[ramayer1]

Hi guys thanks for all your replies after a few days really feel let down by our government and can't quite believe the lack of communication and support. We are a genuine early 30s well educated professional couple who have put in an honest application to unite ourselves in the Uk and start a family. So much has gone into getting where we are today such as buying and renovation our first home on my side and my partner has ended her teaching job and done all her tests and preparation ready to start life in the UK.

I earn ok money with good future potential and work very hard for it and my partner will no doubt become a teacher in the UK at some sort of level with the added bonus of speaking Chinese. It's just so frustrating that all our plans have been stopped and the financial and emotional stress we have been put under is the result of a few missing documents which could have been requested in a 2min text email or phone call. Really stinks!

We have been up and down the last few days but are determined to be together and looks like we will have to find the money to reapply but are very worried about another refusal though and can't really afford to pay the prices the agents are charging, I am going to do my best to supply all the evidence and more to make our case along with a letter from all involved to say we have addressed the refusal issues. If there is anyone here who can offer any advice or contacts for us to get some guidance with our second application we would be very grateful Has anyone got a number to call or email for us to try get some sort of communication going with the powers that be?

Are people still leaning towards the idea that an appeal is a waste of time and money and the second application is the right thing to do?

Thanks again for any replies and advice.

[theoldgit]

To be honest you wont get any communication going with the decision makers, they work on the documentary evidence in front of them at the time, they will not enter into any discussion before the application is submitted.

I'm not sure that an appeal would succeed, they will say that the required evidence wasn't submitted, they will probably conveniently ignore that fact that a five minute phone call would have the necessary evidence on their desk in a day or so. You might want to follow Tony M's advice and consider going down the complaints route as he has outlined in post #7.

You of course need to keep in mind that appeals cost and can take time.

By far the easiest route would to reapply, I don't think you need an agent as you know what's missing, but you would need to stump up another £1,000 or so.