Wife's & child's tier2 dependent visa refuced.Review/reapply

My wife's and child's Tier 2 dependent visa has been refused. The reason is that in the bank statement we submitted (my wife's bank account) the name was WIFENAME MY*NAME instead of WIFENAME MYNAME - there was one letter different. So the visa officer argued that the submitted bank statement belongs to a different person, not beloning to my wife. Since my wife's visa got rejected due to this reason my child's visa also got rejected.

It is mentioned in the letter that I cannot submit any additional evidence. How can I handle this situation? Can I submit a letter from the bank saying that the statement is belonging to my wife?

Is it worth applying for review?

Thanks in advance.

This may be a serious matter.

If the ECO refused your wife because of using someone else's documents, then it's tantamount to accusing her of using deception. They may also refuse future applications under 320(7b) for a period of 10 years, unless exempted.

Refuting a deception allegation is one of the few exceptions where additional evidence may be supplied at AR.

AR2.4 wrote:The Reviewer will not consider any evidence that was not before the original decision maker except where evidence that was not before the original decision maker is submitted to demonstrate that a case working error as defined in paragraph AR2.11 (a), and (b) has been made.

AR2.5 wrote:If the applicant has identified a case working error as defined in paragraph AR2.11 (a), and (b), the Reviewer may contact the applicant or his representative in writing, and request relevant evidence. The requested evidence must be received at the address specified in the request within 7 working days of the date of the request.

AR2.11 wrote:For the purposes of these Rules, a case working error is:
(a) Where the original decision maker’s decision to refuse an application on the basis of paragraph 320(7A), 320(7B) or 322(1A) of these Rules, or cancel leave to enter or remain which is in force under 321A(2) of these Rules, was incorrect;