Post
by VictoriaS » Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:15 pm
I don't come here often, but thought I'd chip in.
The problem with HSMP applications at the moment is that not all of the little nuances of the documentation are featured on the guidelines. For example, if you get paid in cash, even if you get a payslip, if the name of the employer isn't on the bank statements, they won't count the statements as evidence. It's little things like that we know, whether or not a payslip is professional enough, whether your degree certificate will be rejected if it has a handwritten amendment, whether, if self employed, the documentation from an accountant is suitable.
If you have a straight forward application then no, you shouldn't need consultants. But the Home Office do refuse on very dodgy grounds, and using a consultant can alleviate this.
As for whether a solicitor is better than a consultant, that is impossible to say. A solicitor is not regulated by the OISC and doesn't have to sit exams and be audited as consultant firms do. A solicitor may be a specialist in criminal law and get bored and set up as an immigration lawyer without having ever practised immigration law before - consultants can't do that. Also, the OISC will come down hard on consultants who rip you off or behave unethically. The Law Society are not as hard on solicitors who do the same, so if you use a consultant you have more redress if something does go wrong.
My advice is that, if you are in doubt, go to a consultant. Shop around, find one with a good reputation, find one who someone you know has used.
As for that other thread...well, the gentleman and I had a discussion off line, and I believe matters have resolved themselves. Every story has two sides.
Victoria
Going..going...gone!
