teddy0409 wrote:"How and when the 'Evidential Flexibility Policy' is applied during anILR application processing by a case worker in LIVERPOOL PEO"
A bit of history. Before the EFP policy came into being, there were many many complaints
by both case workers and applicants that some applications couldn't be decided rationally because of the strict nature of the interpretation of the rules in place.
From the case worker's perspective:
- 1. Simple errors such as name misspellings or a small but critical line not filled in, meant they had to refuse the application, sometimes painfully knowing full well that this could lead to devastating situations for the applicant.
2. Much more rarely, situations where you, me, and anybody else with any common sense whatsoever could see that the applicant should not be granted leave or entry, but because of the rigidness of the decision process, they had to approve the application anyway.
3. Straightforward applications having bloated and confusing amounts of documentation supplied with them making it difficult, and at times impossible, to sort out the basic details that were needed to actually make a decision.
That was all exacerbated by the fact that the rules didn't allow for 'new evidence' in the appeals, leading to mystifying (and costly for the government) drawn-out cases for trivial issues with an application.
From the applicant's perspective:
- 1. Simple mistakes causing costly, sometimes idiotic refusals.
2. Having evidence on hand, literally available instantly if so requested, yet not being able to present it.
3. Unrealistically intense pressure to ensure that an application was absolutely perfect and fail safe, leading to situations where loads of useless, sometimes counter productive, evidence was supplied with otherwise very straightforward applications.
One of the responses to these complaints and glaring problems was the Evidential Flexibility Policy. It allowed case workers to request for correct details, ask for supplementary evidence, and give the applicant some small window to sort out readily fixable problems. It released the case worker from the pressure of rigid inflexible rules deciding a case instead of common sense. Obviously it allowed applicants to quickly fix any problem in a reasonable manner. This has been a blessing for everybody IMO.
There were other pressures at work here, most notably the overwhelming number of appeals that simply had to be reduced by any means as they were clogging up the system, making it difficult for everybody. But that's perhaps a side story.
The point is that EFP was never meant to be yet another draconian enforced policy that had to be applied to all applications no matter how complicated they might be. Indeed that would be a contradiction to the whole spirit of EFP! And tax issues can get messy... quick. I dare say that this is well outside the original scope of EFP. Hence the recommendations by moderators on this board that some unsuccessful applicants challenge the government in court to prove implications of dishonesty, especially when it obvious that they've got a case. That kind of challenge truly allows an applicant to really make their case.
I don't want to dissuade you. But I think that if you were hoping that EFP was meant to immediately give an applicant free reign to sort out
any application, that potentially has any myriad of very complicated issues, as they saw fit, you might not get the result you are hoping for. EFP was meant for the accidentally forgotten LITUK test result or a missing digit off the end of a credit card number. It was not meant for a flurry of notarized accounting statements and HMRC acknowledgements and cover letters explaining discrepancies in unmet legal obligations.
