EEA2 second application returned

mcovet wrote:
Appeals under EEA regulations are FREE of charge, as far as I'm concerned. If the court finds UKBA acted unreasonably and could have easily decided in favour of the applicant on the basis of supplied docs, applicant is entitled to claim losses suffered, actual and potential earnings etc.

Go read your own posts, and find at least 1 in 10 where you don't hint on having a go at the OPs...trololo man

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaqC5FnvAEc

Wrong. Not all are free. Check your facts.

Even those that are free to submit there are additional costs involved in preparation and time.

I have no intention of looking at the youtube link.

keffers wrote:Why not get a job somewhere and save yourself the headache of proving self-employment?

Perhaps you meant something slightly different, but on face value people will draw their own conclusions.

I've started a new thread summarising guidance for self-employed persons. Hopefully, someone with practical experience can shed some light on this.

That said, The guidance is reasonably clear.

http://www.immigrationboards.com/viewtopic.php?t=105916

keffers wrote:

EUsmileWEallsmile wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion, but apart from suggesting that the OP's family member gives up their job and seeks work, what insights can you bring?

(It's a card, not a permit btw).

Correct. I did state it was a permit.

Wrong. I never suggested anyone give up being self-employed. I know of many translators/interpreters who quite easily combine the two. It would only be a temporary state of affairs to satisfy the requirements of obtaining the card.

If there were a direct correlation between complaining and a high chance of a successful outcome then complain away; but more often than not the advice to complain appears to be a way of having a go at UKBA by proxy - rather than being a well structured and concillitory attempt to resove a disagreement in the application of rules.

On the original point there is nothing unreasonable that has been asked for - now if someone reading this thread supplies everything that has been requested above and was unsuccesful on the basis it was not enough, even I would question the rationale of UKBA.

Presumably, you did not know most of this when you decided to post your helpful suggestions.

You appear not to understand when to quit when ahead, let alone when behind.

Legitimate complaints are just that and welcomed by UKBA.

I note that you didn't take up the invitation to add to the other post where I invited contributions to the documentation required for self-employed persons. If you have insights, please enlighten us.

Urging people to change careers is a little more radical than a simple complaint.

in addition to also understanding that if we do get a clear answer from the UKBA as to what EXACTLY it is that they want in addition to what the OP provided, this would make it easier for other applicants on this route. Changing their status to a worker is just avoiding finding a solution to this problem which clearly is present in similar cases.

mcovet wrote:If you did lose out by buying tickets to travel 6 months AFTER submitting application, then this can easily be reclaimed in a court of law (together with court costs).
How else are you affected by this situation? It is clear that you are unable to seek employment because you don't have the permission CONFIRMED by the UKBA, nor have the temporary Certificate of Application to do so.

I see. Fortunately I was not affected in any way by that. We both my husband and I are self-employed – the same career but different laguange pairs. My clients do not care if I have a COA or registration card or whatever.

mcovet wrote:Write in RED with heading, potential legal action for failure to accept the application, or smth like that.

Thank you. I shall do so.

keffers wrote:Simply supply what they ask for. Its very clear and uncontencious. It should not be an issue if the self-employment is genuine over several months as stated. The supporting evidence that is being asked for is absolutely basic stuff and should all be to hand. What is the problem?

OK. Keffers, you have hinted quite a few times that you KNOW what they want. The audience is all yours.
I submitted recent invoices and POs, recent bank statements (showing money coming and NIN2 payments by Direct Debit AND), recent tax-return covering 2011-2012 showing 17,000 quids profit from self-employment, calculated tax and NIC4 due 31 January. What else a CW would possibly want to be happy? If it is not listed in the EEA2 Guide, not mentioned in the Directive 2004 or 2006 Regulations, my chances to figure out what it might be are slim. Recent train tickets? My participation in X-factor? Last week horoscope? Harry Potter's wand? ...A dog?

EUsmileWEallsmile wrote:On the contrary, a well structured complaint can make a big difference. Sitting back and accepting inefficiency does not lead to improvements.

I agree. I helped my friend whose husband got refused EEA FP on the grounds that she is not exercising her Treaty Rights in the UK (they lived in Russian and wanted to spend 10 days in the UK). The UKBA totally ignored the fact that she and her family members are entitled to 3-month unconditional stay, and we appealed on that basis. And yeah… all “top” Moscow immigration lawers told her she needs to aply for a regular visa. First we complained to SOLVIT Bulgaria. Judging on the refusal letter from Bulgaria SOLVIT their workers do need to read Directive 2004 a few times, and I mean it, they need it badly.

According to the Bulgarian SOLVIT guy who answered my friend’s complain, they had to apply for a general visa because the Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38 did not apply in their case.

We complained to SOLVIT UK and Central SOLVIT both about EEA FP refusal and Bulgaria Solvit’s rediculous response. The result: Central SOLVIT contacted SOLVIT of Bulgaria and explained the meaning of the Article 3(1). Another result is that she got her EEA FP. All it takes for evil to succeed is for good man to do nothing.

To Keffers. While helping my friend win the case, I have seen too much ignorance, so please spare me your preaching “If the person dealing with them had doubts then it is your responsibility to satisfactorily answer such queries. ” If workers dealing with application “have doubts” it might as well mean that they are ignorent.

keffers wrote:Wrong. I never suggested anyone give up being self-employed. I know of many translators/interpreters who quite easily combine the two.

By doing what exactly? Working at McDonalds?

Nimitta wrote: By doing what exactly? Working at McDonalds?

If that is what it takes - yes. I would and I feel sure many have already done this. How many would jump at the chance of obtaining a residence card by simply working at McDonalds. If only it were so easy.

Unless I am reading it incorrectly, you have only submitted recent evidence and declarations which do not actually prove what is claimed. Why not submit copies of all bank statements from the time you started? All invoices? Is your tax return simply an online self declaration of income/profit? Has income tax been paid on it or is that not payable until next year?

If you have submitted an application based on a self-declaration of £17000 profit since last year, is it unreasonable for someone being told this to expect paper work to confirm it? If you had submitted accounts verified by a recognised and trusted accountant, the outcome may have been different. Well worth the expense.

I have mentioned before that the key phrase in the refusal is continuing self-employment. It would appear to me that UKBA is simply being thorough in asking someone to give adequate proof of what is being claimed.

keffers wrote: Unless I am reading it incorrectly, you have only submitted recent evidence and declarations which do not actually prove what is claimed. Why not submit copies of all bank statements from the time you started? All invoices? Is your tax return simply an online self declaration of income/profit? Has income tax been paid on it or is that not payable until next year?

Due 31 January, but a part of it has already been paid as well as NIC2, and I even circled the amounts in the bank statements for some not particularly bright case workers.

keffers wrote: If you have submitted an application based on a self-declaration of £17000 profit since last year, is it unreasonable for someone being told this to expect paper work to confirm it? If you had submitted accounts verified by a recognised and trusted accountant, the outcome may have been different. Well worth the expense.

Yes, it is unreasonable. All I am required to do by the law is to prove my husband is currently exercising the Treaty rights working as self-employed. You conclusion does not follow either from the law as I do not have to prove that he has been exercising Treaty Rights for 6 months nor from the fact that he declared 17,000 profit. How did you manage to draw the conclusion from the premises? I am surprised you call it "reasonable". This is not EEA4 when one is supposed to prove that EEA citizen has been exercising treaty rights for a certain amount of time. I understand "currently" means 1-2 months, and that is what I sent. And, you do know, don't you, that if they refuse I would appeal and win. You do realize that.... I hope.

I do not have to hire an accountant. The law does not require me to do that.

keffers wrote:I have mentioned before that the key phrase in the refusal is continuing self-employment. It would appear to me that UKBA is simply being thorough in asking someone to give adequate proof of what is being claimed.

I am not sure what you mean by "continuing self-employment", but if you mean anything like you mentioned before, i.e. 6 months of invoices, bank statements etc, read again what they had written (below). I do not smell anything which would support your conclusion.

Original, recent evidence from HM Revenue & Customs to show that he is actively engage as self-employed and registered for and paying tax and National Insurance contributions. Evidence which shows income earned such as trading accounts, bank statements and a current dated original accountant's letter. Invoices and/or customer testimonials in respect of work done and evidence of advertising/business/promotion material....

And I would have sent the whole pack if invoices if they asked me to, but they did not, and based on what they wrote, I do not think your guess is correct.

What is classed as self-employed in one part of Europe may not be classed as such in another part. There is much UK case law which determines whether a person is employed or self-employed. Perhaps UKBA have been slack with their requirements in the past and are now raising the level of proof to what other government agencies require.

I have read guidelines (UKBA) and off the top of my head it states 'audited accounts or bank statments. As audited accounts would be for a trading year it clearly implies that bank statements should cover a year and not just recent ones which you seem to have supplied.

You must agree that currently can be as little as starting on the day an application was made - If the wording is taken literally. Is that what the regulations meant to allow?

You don't have an accountant but every self-employed person I know does. As a newcomer to these shores I admire your ability to work our complicated tax system to your benefit without the need for one. But it would be £2-300 well spent if it gets UKBA off your back.

keffers, you know you lost your argument, why are you still trying to wriggle your way out. Just admit it and disappear. Also, no need for being condescending here: "these shores" and you "admire". The OP is not after your admiration, if someone has basic math skills and his self-employment is straightforward, it's basic maths among the lines of profit, minus losses and job related expenses etc. Keep receipts and you do it yourself, save £300 for smth else... Those people who can realise they have lost the battle of wits, are smart and wise enough to know when to retreat. You just keep bumping this topic high (which is fantastic for the OP) but not doing yourself any favours.

If the OP wants to pull his/her hair out and spend precious time arguing the toss with UKBA trying to prove they know the rules better, I suppose its up to them (but if they did would they have ever come on this forum?).

Its clear they have not provided enough information for UKBA or that the information provided (which we have not seen) has raised questions.
If it were the HMRC that were asking for the information would the OP have the same attitude? So just what is the problem giving what is requested.

Solution? In the absence of audited accounts, either supply everything they want or become an employee.

keffers wrote:If the OP wants to pull his/her hair out and spend precious time arguing the toss with UKBA trying to prove they know the rules better, I suppose its up to them (but if they did would they have ever come on this forum?).

I did not come for your advices, trust me. No offense, but one does not have to be a lawyer to figure out that, all other things equal, part-time or full-time employment offers a more convenient way towards residence card. If it were indeed easier to do that I might have considered it. But it is not. The interesting point is that I know it what I am talking about because I know all facts. I can state it. Since you basically know nothing, and you know it (or, at least, you should) why would not you just, you know, shut up? All things considered, in my case, the way you presented is insane. I-N-S-A-N-E! I am not doing it.

keffers wrote:Its clear they have not provided enough information for UKBA or that the information provided (which we have not seen) has raised questions.

You can repeat "it is clear" as long as you wish, but you did not prove it. Or you hope we did not notice that, and if you say again and again "It is clear! It is clear" it will fly? No, it won't fly.

[/b]

Best of luck.

Nimitta wrote:

keffers wrote:On the contrary, I think it is a far more practical step to take than complaining and waiting. Long ago, someone told me it is far easier to go around a blocked road than to try and force your way through.

Read the post below. In my particular case, "impractical" is an undestatement. "Plain stupid" better describes it, or, say, "Insane".

j

Good news. I received today my RC!

Brief summary:

I have applied for RC 3 times! Two times the application was returned with a generic letter akin "there is no enough evidence that such and such is exercising treaty rights in the UK".

Apart from the usual documents such as passports and marriage certificate we supplied invoices, checks, bank statements all three times (each time fresh bank statements and invoices). The second and the third time we added self-assessment form. The third time a printout of my husband business website was added.

Right after we sent the application the third time (22 June) we also sent a letter of complaint to the NWC and since the NWC seemed to ignore/forget/misplaced the complaint we sent a letter to the MP. My husband's colleague (British citizen) wrote a letter of support to the MP too saying that he knows my husband who works and pays taxes etc. and that he could not understand why we had been treated in such a way by the UKBA.

Some time later we received a reply from the MP saying that he contacted the office of Teresa May. Soon after that the NWC finally replied and so did the UKBA. They promised to send the COA within 2 weeks and actually sent it 3 days later, that is on September 29.

The RC was received today, on 9 November dated 23 October.

Now, if you have a similar case I would suggest the following course of action, and by "course of action" I don't mean applying for a job at McDonalds.

Send the EEA2 application, some time later request the passport return. Not necessarily but you have a good chance of the caseworker to look at the folder. He even might open it! If the case-worker "does not like" your application or does not even feel like opening it because you know you are self-employed and pain in the gluteus maximus, he/she will return the passport and all the documents accompanied by a useless generic return letter.

Now, ASAP prepare the fresh application and send it to the UKBA, and immediately after that send a letter of complaint to the NWC. Explain that you sent the EEA2 application with all the documents required by the Directive, Regulations 2006, EEA2 guide and their own instructions and received a useless generic return letter from the UKBA.

Wait for 3 weeks during which the NWC have to respond. If they don't respond, write a letter of complaint to your MP. In the letter to the MP complain about the same you have complained in the letter to the NWC and also point out that the NWC ignored your complaint.

Be specific, include all necessary details - the date you sent the application, the date it was returned, the date you sent your letter to the NWC. Keep record of your immigration history events. Five years until the PR is long time to go and you cannot afford forgetting a date or missing a document.

mcovet wrote:in addition to also understanding that if we do get a clear answer from the UKBA as to what EXACTLY it is that they want in addition to what the OP provided, this would make it easier for other applicants on this route. Changing their status to a worker is just avoiding finding a solution to this problem which clearly is present in similar cases.

So... I guess the answer to the question "what EXACTLY it is that they want" is "the letter from the MP"... I still don't get what they did not like in my second application.

In addition to what Mcovet has written I might add that the freelance professionals who work online often reside in smaller cities (like us). It is really hard to find a job at McDonalds in a city where there is no McDonalds. So, keffers, what would be the next advice ? Moving to another city? As I have already said it really is impractical, ridiculous and plane insane...