zim asylum

[suzyq]

Firstly, a poor immigration history will only affect visa applications that are not for settlement purposes.

SuzyQ

Hi Suzy - I'm afraid that's no longer true. I've seen a lot of refusals recently under para 320 where spouse visas have been refused because of previous immigration histories.

Refusals due to past immigration histories usually occurs where there has been clear deception and false representations. This would therefore cast doubts over the genuineness of the marriage. The usual stance of the Home Office/ECO being "you have lied before, so why should we believe you now?"

Not any more. Overstayers are being refused on that basis ALONE. I've seen 10 in the past month, and more posted on this board.

Since when do the Home Office make the right decision and apply the law correctly? Just because the Home Office makes a decision doesn't mean it is legally right.

Please refer to these cases:

http://www.ait.gov.uk/Public/Upload/j19 ... _china.doc

http://www.ait.gov.uk/Public/Upload/j18 ... _india.doc

The first 7 grounds for refusal are mandatory and the following ones are not. Overstaying is number 11.

"Paragraph 320
. In addition to the grounds of refusal of entry clearance or leave to enter set out in Parts 2-8 of these Rules, and subject to paragraph 321 below, the following grounds for the refusal of entry clearance or leave to enter apply:
Grounds on which entry clearance or leave to enter the United Kingdom is to be refused

(1) the fact that entry is being sought for a purpose not covered by these Rules;

(2) the fact that the person seeking entry to the United Kingdom is currently the subject of a deportation order;

(3) failure by the person seeking entry to the United Kingdom to produce to the Immigration Officer a valid national passport or other document satisfactorily establishing his identity and nationality;

(4) failure to satisfy the Immigration Officer, in the case of a person arriving in the United Kingdom or seeking entry through the Channel Tunnel with the intention of entering any other part of the common travel area, that he is acceptable to the immigration authorities there;

(5) failure, in the case of a visa national, to produce to the Immigration Officer a passport or other identity document endorsed with a valid and current United Kingdom entry clearance issued for the purpose for which entry is sought;

(6) where the Secretary of State has personally directed that the exclusion of a person from the United Kingdom is conducive to the public good;

(7) save in relation to a person settled in the United Kingdom or where the Immigration Officer is satisfied that there are strong compassionate reasons justifying admission, confirmation from the Medical Inspector that, for medical reasons, it is undesirable to admit a person seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom.
Grounds on which entry clearance or leave to enter the United Kingdom should normally be refused

(8 ) failure by a person arriving in the United Kingdom to furnish the Immigration Officer with such information as may be required for the purpose of deciding whether he requires leave to enter and, if so, whether and on what terms leave should be given;

(8A) where the person seeking leave is outside the United Kingdom, failure by him to supply any information, documents, copy documents or medical report requested by an Immigration Officer;

(9) failure by a person seeking leave to enter as a returning resident to satisfy the Immigration Officer that he meets the requirements of paragraph 18 of these Rules, or that he seeks leave to enter for the same purpose as that for which his earlier leave was granted;

(10) production by the person seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom of a national passport or travel document issued by a territorial entity or authority which is not recognised by Her Majesty's Government as a state or is not dealt with as a government by them, or which does not accept valid United Kingdom passports for the purpose of its own immigration control; or a passport or travel document which does not comply with international passport practice;

(11) failure to observe the time limit or conditions attached to any grant of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom;

(12) the obtaining of a previous leave to enter or remain by deception;

(13) failure, except by a person eligible for admission to the United Kingdom for settlement or a spouse or civil partner eligible for admission under paragraph 282, to satisfy the Immigration Officer that he will be admitted to another country after a stay in the United Kingdom;

(14) refusal by a sponsor of a person seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom to give, if requested to do so, an undertaking in writing to be responsible for that person's maintenance and accommodation for the period of any leave granted;

(15) whether or not to the holder's knowledge, the making of false representations or the failure to disclose any material fact for the purpose of obtaining an immigration employment document;

(16) failure, in the case of a child under the age of 18 years seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom otherwise than in conjunction with an application made by his parent(s) or legal guardian to provide the Immigration Officer, if required to do so, with written consent to the application from his parent(s) or legal guardian; save that the requirement as to written consent does not apply in the case of a child seeking admission to the United Kingdom as an asylum seeker;

(17) save in relation to a person settled in the United Kingdom, refusal to undergo a medical examination when required to do so by the Immigration Officer;

(18 ) save where the Immigration Officer is satisfied that admission would be justified for strong compassionate reasons, conviction in any country including the United Kingdom of an offence which, if committed in the United Kingdom, is punishable with imprisonment for a term of 12 months or any greater punishment or, if committed outside the United Kingdom, would be so punishable if the conduct constituting the offence had occurred in the United Kingdom;

(19) where, from information available to the Immigration Officer, it seems right to refuse leave to enter on the ground that exclusion from the United Kingdom is conducive to the public good; if, for example, in the light of the character, conduct or associations of the person seeking leave to enter it is undesirable to give him leave to enter.

(20) failure by a person seeking entry into the United Kingdom to comply with a requirement relating to the provision of physical data to which he is subject by regulations made under section 126 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

(21) Whether or not to the applicant's knowledge, the submission of a false document in support of an application."


Please also refer to the Home Office's Immigration Directorate Instructions (IDIs) Chapter 9 Section 2:

http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/docume ... iew=Binary

"PARAGRAPH 320(11) - FAILURE TO OBSERVE TIME LIMIT OR CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO PREVIOUS STAY

Whether or not a passenger satisfies the formal requirements of another paragraph of the Rules, under Paragraph 320(11) his previous immigration history may be taken into account. Refusal under this paragraph is appropriate where a person has shown by his previous conduct that he has contrived in a significant way to frustrate the purpose of the Rules. It is not intended that this paragraph should be used in a punitive manner, and the immigration officer should not seek to rely on, for example, a minor period of overstaying as a sole ground for refusal."

So overstaying ALONE will not be the only reason why a person can be legally refused. 320 only becomes mandatory when any of grounds 1-7 apply? What have been the outcomes of your clients' appeals? Did the Immigration Judge dismiss the appeal, despite your client's marriage being genuine and subsisting? What was said in respect of Article 8?

The poster of this thread was referring to her marriage to a British spouse, so really this what the post is about and not other types of visa applications in which 320 may be utilised.

I'm afraid I can't comment on the other posts on here regarding 320 but I am sure that not everything is as clear as it seems, and that refusals SOLELY based on 320, save grounds 1-7, are, in cases where paragraph 281 is satisfied, unlawful.

If a person has overstayed and is wanting to apply for a fixed term visa, say Student purposes or Family visitor and they have a messy immigration history, yes of course they will be refused. They will be unlikely able to convince the ECO that they intend to leave the UK at the end of their visa. However, in respect of settlement purposes, I still can't quite understand what legal basis you are asserting that overstaying will affect the application.

What the Home Office decides, is not always legally correct.

Please provide us with some legal authorities or clearer examples, rather than a simple one sentence response. Back up what you are saying please.

Regards,

SuzyQ

[avjones]

"If a person has overstayed and is wanting to apply for a fixed term visa, say Student purposes or Family visitor and they have a messy immigration history, yes of course they will be refused. They will be unlikely able to convince the ECO that they intend to leave the UK at the end of their visa. However, in respect of settlement purposes, I still can't quite understand what legal basis you are asserting that overstaying will affect the application.

What the Home Office decides, is not always legally correct.

Please provide us with some legal authorities or clearer examples, rather than a simple one sentence response. Back up what you are saying please."

ECOs have started refusing such visas under para 320(11). I have told you, as a fact, that I've seen 10 such refusals myself in the last few weeks. I'm not quite sure how I can "back that up", as I'm not going to start scanning and posting my lay clients' refusal letters!

"So overstaying ALONE will not be the only reason why a person can be legally refused. 320 only becomes mandatory when any of grounds 1-7 apply? What have been the outcomes of your clients' appeals? Did the Immigration Judge dismiss the appeal, despite your client's marriage being genuine and subsisting? What was said in respect of Article 8? "

Nothing - as I've said, these are ECO decisions and haven't yet come to appeal.

But under the Immigration Rules, ignoring A8 for a second, reasons 320 (1-7) are, as you say, the grounds where entry clearnace "is" to be refused. Para 320 (8 onwards) are grounds where entry clearance will "normally" be refused. So it's not mandatory, but it is permissable on that ground alone.

Then, as you rightly point out, A8 comes in to play.

But I've also told you, clearly, that other people posting on this board have posted with EXACTLY the same experience. FOr settlement visas. You could have searched for yourself, but have a look at:

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... hlight=320

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... hlight=320

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewto ... hlight=320

I didn't post anything about "legal authorities", I'm talking about ECOs refusing under para 320(11) for settlement visas. You are not right to say this doesn't happen - it is happening at the moment.

What may happen on appeal is a different matter, of course. But visas are being refused on this basis.

"Firstly, a poor immigration history will only affect visa applications that are not for settlement purposes..... As long as these are satisfied, in my professional experience, it has made no difference that a person has had a messy immigration history."

You aren't right here. In fact, not to put too fine a point on it, you're wrong. Being refused by the ECO under para 320(1) certainly affects a visa application, even if the person then wins on appeal.

I've read the guidance to which you refer, and it states that a "minor" period of overstaying shouldn't be used on a punitive basis. That can certainly be used on appeal. But where someone's overstayed by years, it's hard to see that as "minor".

You seem to have come on to this forum and started posting in quite an unnecessarily aggressive way. Is that necessary?

[paulp]

Please also refer to the Home Office's Immigration Directorate Instructions (IDIs) Chapter 9 Section 2:

http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/docume ... iew=Binary

"PARAGRAPH 320(11) - FAILURE TO OBSERVE TIME LIMIT OR CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO PREVIOUS STAY

Whether or not a passenger satisfies the formal requirements of another paragraph of the Rules, under Paragraph 320(11) his previous immigration history may be taken into account. Refusal under this paragraph is appropriate where a person has shown by his previous conduct that he has contrived in a significant way to frustrate the purpose of the Rules. It is not intended that this paragraph should be used in a punitive manner, and the immigration officer should not seek to rely on, for example, a minor period of overstaying as a sole ground for refusal."

So overstaying ALONE will not be the only reason why a person can be legally refused. 320 only becomes mandatory when any of grounds 1-7 apply?

suzyq, aren't you confusing the immigration rules and the IDIs? The former are legally binding, the latter aren't.

[suzyq]

Hi victoria, will it be possible to apply for asylum even tho i am a spouse of a british citizen. Im from zim and an overstayer so dont want to return to zim for entry clearance incase its refused as they have been refusing overstayers. I did not intentionally over stay, i applied for ancestry visa which took 2years for them to make a decision it was rejected as my birth certificate was proved to be a fake. I have since managed to get a new copy which is genuine but i am getting married so will be applying for a spouse visa. Is it possible to switch to asylum application. please help

Urm, actually Amanda check your posts they were fairly rude since they were so matter of fact, without any real debate or substance.

How can you state what has happened in my professional experience? Stating that I am wrong? Wrong about my own life? You don't know what happens in my personal life, so to put a fine point on it, you're wrong. Sheesh.

You seem to have missed the point completely and the responses of mine are directed to the query raised by the original poster of this thread, you seem to have gone off topic and perhaps are confusing the issues.

You have been here for some time, judging by your post count. That doesn't mean YOU have to be rude to someone who perhaps challenges your position of authority that you feel you have on this forum.

I am not sure what your point has been to just shoot down what I have posted without any real legal basis to back up that you are stating a legally correct position.

I was wrong to have stated that messy immigration history won't affect the application when what I meant it won't ULTIMATELY affect the application in the end, ie if it is refused and goes to appeal.

As the law stands, the Home Office in refusing people on the basis of 320 other than (save) grounds 1-7 would be acting unlawfully in respect of settlement/marriage applications. Article 8 would most definitely come into play, how can you ignore it? Ground 1 wouldn't apply to Chibage since she wants to make a marriage application.

The examples you have cited on from on here, and of your own experience, are decisions made by ECOs. Of these decisions, so long as the substantive part of the immigration rules are satisfied, how many have been upheld by the AIT?

An application that is made pursuant to paragraph 281 and is refused solely on the basis of 320 will be in breach of Article 8. Paragraph 281 will need to be satisfied, and so long as it it, the decision to refuse the visa on the basis of 320 would breach Article 8 because the concept of maintaining fair and effective immigration really doesn't come into play because it is for settlement purposes.

Again, it really does depend on how you argue your client's case. It is always appropriate to spell out how the immigration rules are satisfied and explain any contentious points in the covering letter. Perhaps the reason why your clients are having refusals is because the applications were poorly drafted.

"You aren't right here. In fact, not to put too fine a point on it, you're wrong. Being refused by the ECO under para 320(1) certainly affects a visa application, even if the person then wins on appeal." (And you call me aggressive?)

Please provide us with a AIT or COA or some legal decision that supports the proposition that this is legal correct. Or are you, in fact, WRONG?

Ultimately I know what happens in my professional life. I have always got the result my clients want, even if that requires me attending the AIT. Usually the applications are granted by the ECOs (because my advice often is for people to return home and make their marriage applications or (even student applications in certain circumstances) from there, since there are no exceptional circumstances that would allow them to circumvent Mahmood) or if it is refused, we ultimately win on appeal. Even when 320 was raised, only once mind.

I have a 100% success rate, but haven' t come on here with my real name and advertising the fact that I am a member of Middle Temple (no longer practicing at the Bar due to the time one waited to be paid under the CLR schemes), Level 2 LSC Senior Caseworker and Supervisor Standard, OISC Level 3 in all areas, because I simply am very busy and do not need the extra business.

I came on here and started to post because quite simply I was shocked by the poor level of immigration advice that is being bantered about on here as if it is legally correct. You, Amanda, reinforce this view.

I wanted to help people, but see that perhaps this forum is a bit cliquey and that Admin/Mods will probably take action against me. Which is fine, I am probably better spent giving my advice pro bono at a legal advice centre or some such.

Paul P: IDIs form part of the Home Office's policy and therefore, if they do not act in accordance with them, then they are "not acting in accordance with the law" which is a separate ground of appeal. Published policies include DP/5/96, DP/06/96 (7 years policy re children, see Baig) as well as the published IDIs.

[avjones]

How can you state what has happened in my professional experience? Stating that I am wrong? Wrong about my own life? You don't know what happens in my personal life, so to put a fine point on it, you're wrong. Sheesh.

I am not interested in, nor have I referred to, your personal life. I've pointed out that your professional experience doesn't appear to encompass the recent apparent surge in 320(11) refusals.

I am not sure what your point has been to just shoot down what I have posted without any real legal basis to back up that you are stating a legally correct position.

I was wrong to have stated that messy immigration history won't affect the application when what I meant it won't ULTIMATELY affect the application in the end, ie if it is refused and goes to appeal.

Then you should have said so, because it appears to me clear that waiting a year for an appeal would have an affect on an application!

You keep going on about "real legal basis to back up that you are stating", but as I've said before, these refusals are recent. "Of these decisions, so long as the substantive part of the immigration rules are satisfied, how many have been upheld by the AIT?" None have got to the AIT, all these decisions have been made too recently for that.

An application that is made pursuant to paragraph 281 and is refused solely on the basis of 320 will be in breach of Article 8. Paragraph 281 will need to be satisfied, and so long as it it, the decision to refuse the visa on the basis of 320 would breach Article 8 because the concept of maintaining fair and effective immigration really doesn't come into play because it is for settlement purposes."

Perhaps the reason why your clients are having refusals is because the applications were poorly drafted.

I still wonder why you are being so aggressive. None were, in fact, drafted by me. Most were drafted by solicitors with a very good record in entry clearance cases. It appears that there has been a recent policy shift to encompass much more use of 320(11).

I think it's dangerous to say catagorically that a refusal under 320(11) on its own is necessarily a breach of A8. The ECHR has said several times that a country doesn't have to oblige a couple in their choice of residence, for example. I certainly hope the Court of Appeal (I imagine this new policy is heading upwards) will come to the same conclusion as we do, but I don't think it's a defininte that all cases where the Immigration Rules are met bar 320(11) will be a breach of A8; I imagine it may well be fact sensitive.


"Please provide us with a AIT or COA or some legal decision that supports the proposition that this is legal correct. Or are you, in fact, WRONG?"

How can there be an AIT decision on such a recent (last few weeks only) flood of decisions?

[suzyq]

Urm Amanda, don't you think your own one sentence, fairly bolshy, posts were rude or aggressive? Pretty much anything I have posted, you have come and shot it down with one sentence responses in a condescending manner. Do you think it is ok just to state to someone "You're Wrong" and nothing else to support your position that I am, in fact, wrong?

""Firstly, a poor immigration history will only affect visa applications that are not for settlement purposes..... As long as these are satisfied, in my professional experience, it has made no difference that a person has had a messy immigration history."

You aren't right here. In fact, not to put too fine a point on it, you're wrong. Being refused by the ECO under para 320(1) certainly affects a visa application, even if the person then wins on appeal."


So you have actually made remarks about my professional life. I have always won, either by first application or first appeal, so I am not wrong about my own life, you are.

Well as long as there are "insurmountable obstacle" for the couple to return to the applicant's home country, then Article 8 will most certainly come into play. Unless a decision supersedes Mahmood and introduces new landmark principles in the way Article 8/Spouse cases should be dealt with. I think you are confusing alot of what is being stated, perhaps in an attempt to continue attacking me. Which is what I feel you have effectively been doing to me.

I have "backed-up" my position with case law regarding 320. The Home Office, I'd bet, haven't even cited any legal authorities to back up what they are saying (otherwise you would have cited them also). Therefore, in the absence of any legal authority to support what the Home Office are doing, I do not believe that the are making the correct decision, and the decision SHOULD be easily overturned at appeal, so long as it paragraph 281 is satisfied. So ULTIMATELY, if a client had a refusal on 320(11) alone, and the rules were satisfied, I would get my client the result they want.

Again I'll refer you to some other part of the IDIs, Chapter 9, Section 2, paragraph 13:

"PARAGRAPH 320(11) - FAILURE TO OBSERVE TIME LIMIT OR CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO PREVIOUS STAY
Whether or not a passenger satisfies the formal requirements of another paragraph of the Rules, under Paragraph 320(11) his previous immigration history may be taken into account. Refusal under this paragraph is appropriate where a person has shown by his previous conduct that he has contrived in a significant way to frustrate the purpose of the Rules. It is not intended that this paragraph should be used in a punitive manner, and the immigration officer should not seek to rely on, for example, a minor period of overstaying as a sole ground for refusal.
It must be borne in mind that where a current entry clearance is held, leave to enter is not to be refused except in the circumstances described in Paragraph 321 of HC 395 (see Section 3 to this chapter)."

"conduct that he has contrived in a significant way to frustrate the purposes of the Rules"??? Did Mahmood himself not conduct himself in a manner to significantly frustrate the purpose of the rules? He applied for asylum and failed miserably, his credibility seriously damaged, and he wanted to remain on the basis of marriage. By virtue of the fact he had messed around with the immigration rules and 320(11) he should not have been told by the Court to return home and join the entry clearance queues. This issue would have most certainly been addressed if it was a significant one.

The IDIs and Caselaw - domestic and European, would assist any applicant/appellant refused under 320(11). So again I would state that it depends on how well you argue your client's case.

I am not prepared to accept that in totality I am wrong in my belief in the correct application of the immigration rules.

I was wrong to state that an application would not be affected by messy immigration histories, when what I meant to state was that it won't ULTIMATELY affect the end result/outcome.

Do your client's RFRLs deal with the substantive immigration rules? Or do they just deal with 320(11) and not entertain paragraph 281?

In any event, the way you are arguing your point, is as if the Home Office have made the correct decision and that is the end of it. Just because the Home Office decides something does not mean they are right. Come on, you know this.

"Nothing - as I've said, these are ECO decisions and haven't yet come to appeal."

So why are you making posts as if this is the legally correct position? Shouldn't you be stating something along the lines of: "well people can be refused under 320, actually people can be refused for any reason, but the legality of such decisions has not been tested, yet recently people are being refused on 320(11) alone, despite satisfying the substantive elements of the immigration rules. - AND STATE YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION as to whether you think the Home Office have made the right result" instead of your one sentence remarks in which you seem to relish telling someone they are WRONG.


Until there is an AIT or higher Court decision that allows the Home Office to conduct themselves in this way, then I am not convinced that your client's won't be successful upon appeal, so long as the substantive part of the immigration rules are satisfied. Such conduct goes against the letter of Article 8, if not most certainly the spirit. The issue of proportionality? Would the Home Office's actions be proportionate to the aims being pursued, fair and effective immigration, if a person is coming to settle and they are being refused because they overstayed before? Having to leave at the end of the term of the visa doesn't come into play, so the ambit of "fair and effective immigration" is reduced so compared to Student or other fixed term visas.

[avjones]

"Urm Amanda, don't you think your own one sentence, fairly bolshy, posts were rude or aggressive?"

Not really. I don't tend to think that longer posts are automatically politer than shorter ones! My first post was "Hi Suzy - I'm afraid that's no longer true. I've seen a lot of refusals recently under para 320 where spouse visas have been refused because of previous immigration histories." I don't see anything rude or aggressive about that.


"Do you think it is ok just to state to someone "You're Wrong" and nothing else to support your position that I am, in fact, wrong?"

No, I don't think it's OK. But, of course, it's not what I actually said. I pointed out that I'd seen refusal recently under 320 because of previous immigration histories. I didn't say in that post that you were wrong. Following my first post, as above, you got all aggressive.

"So you have actually made remarks about my professional life."

You said personal life, though, which is a slight moving of goal posts.

" Which is what I feel you have effectively been doing to me."

Serious question. Why did you feel that ""Hi Suzy - I'm afraid that's no longer true. I've seen a lot of refusals recently under para 320 where spouse visas have been refused because of previous immigration histories." was attacking?

" I do not believe that the are making the correct decision, and the decision SHOULD be easily overturned at appeal, so long as it paragraph 281 is satisfied. So ULTIMATELY, if a client had a refusal on 320(11) alone, and the rules were satisfied, I would get my client the result they want."

I agree with you. I think the decisions should be overturned on appeal. As I already said. But that's not defininte. And I do think this is an affect on an application. Don't you think someone stuck overseas for a year with spouse and kids awaiting an appeal would feel affected?

"By virtue of the fact he had messed around with the immigration rules and 320(11) he should not have been told by the Court to return home and join the entry clearance queues. This issue would have most certainly been addressed if it was a significant one."

I don't think it was raised, from my reading of the case.

"I am not prepared to accept that in totality I am wrong in my belief in the correct application of the immigration rules."

I haven't said you are wrong in your belief of the application of the rules, I said you were wrong to say it was not affection by adverse immigration histories.

"Do your client's RFRLs deal with the substantive immigration rules? Or do they just deal with 320(11) and not entertain paragraph 281?"

No generalities. Most deal with both, but a couple only with 320.

[Wanderer]

I find Amanda's posts neither rude nor aggressive, only informative and straight from the Front Line, telling us what's happening now.

What do I know, I'm just an innocent bystander who regularly gets it wrong here, so what do I know?

[VictoriaS]

Suzy - if you have won appeals on spousal visa refusals which were solely refused on 320, and these have taken place in the past 4 - 6 weeks, it would really help many on the board, myself included, if you could let us know on what grounds you got the refusal overturned. I think that would be a really constructive thing for all.

Victoria

[jimquk]

For what it's worth, I really appreciate the input of professionals like Victoria, Amanda and I hope Suzy, who give up a lot of time on this board to help others without reward; also that of non-professionals who have fought their own way throgh the system. One of the virtues of this forum is that non-professionals can offer advice and opinions that may in fact be incorrect or unwise safe in the knowledge that our errors will be picked up on by others with more experience. So although from first reading the standard of advice may seem poor, we are all grateful for the level of "supervision" available. Suzy, if you encounter examples of

the poor level of immigration advice that is being bantered about on here as if it is legally correct

, please do contribute for the benefit of all.

It is important though for the board to work that all members respect each others' input and experiences. (Gosh, I sound like a moderator!) My reading of the thread, coloured no doubt by my reading of many threads over the months, is that Amanda's contributions are appropriately respectful. I do not think she has merited your attacks, nor your suggestion that she is here to advertise herself. She has nowhere stated that the Home Office position is unchallengeable, merely that the outcome of such challenges remains uncertain. This is surely correct, and a more honest stance toward vulnerable clients than the certainty of 100% success rate.

[goldfish]

agree with jimquk, the forum is for everyone to share their experiences and opinions. some people give accurate advice and some may misinterpret or be confused. generally incorrect advice is countered by someone with a more expert opinion.

the forum gives everyone access to a much wider range of experience than just "friends and colleagues" or £££ professional advisers. i have found it very valuable in preparing my HSMP extension application and in identifying potential issues that could come up later - sufficiently in advance that hopefully i can do something about them.

sometimes the answers might not be what we would hope, but that doesn't justify an attack on the messenger. with experts like Amanda giving free advice, this would be an unbiased source of information. there's no fee involved so no need to be overly "optimistic" about an application to secure more fees from a client.

(And can I say Amanda, what an eloquent and well-structured defence of your position, one would almost think you were a lawyer