need help

was granted reconsideration for my psw, so HO requested for my document, submitted all, then i was refused based on maintenace on the 21th sept 2013
with right of appeal. so the question is

1.i applied for psw on the 30th of march 2012 with complete document, i had 1100 pounds as oppose to the 800 requested in my account from 8th dec 2011 till 10th march 2012, and my lawyer even stated they can count from 10th of march upwards or from 8th of dec downwards which is more than 90days requested..but on the 12th to 13th of march 2012 it has dipped by 40 quid from 800pound remaining 760.

then this is HO decision states as follow
WE HAVE ASSESED MAINTENACE FUNDS FROM THE PERIOD OF 15TH DEC 2011 TO 13 MARCH 2012 FROM THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT YOU MAINTAINED THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF AVAILABLE FUNDSFUNDS THROUGHOUT THIS FULL 90DAYS PERIOD AS SPECIFIED UNDER APPENDIX C OF THE IMMIGRATION RULES.THIS IS BECAUSE ON THE 12TH AND 13TH OF MARCH 2012 FUNDS FELL BELOW 800 WITH THE MINIMUM BALANCE BEEN 760 POUNDS.
NOTE, THAT ALTHOUGH YOUR REPRESENTATIVE HAS DATED THAT THEY WISHED FOR THE PERIOD TO BE ASSESED 90 DAYS BACKWARDS FROM 10MARCH 2012 ,IN LINE WITH THE IMMIGRATION RULES WE ASSESS THE MAINTEANACE PERIOD FROMTHE LAST DATE ON THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED ,PRIOR TO THE DATE OF APPLICATION AND IN THIS INSTANCE ,NO BENEFICIAL PERIOD HAS BEEN ASSESSED. SO WE THEREFORE CAN NOT AWARD YOU ANYPOINT ON MAINTENANCE FUNDS.

PLEASE ANY ADVICE WILL HELP AS PSW HAS CLOSED

Unfortunately, the end date, and consequently, the consecutive 90-day period of time, were determined from the bank statements that you had provided, in accordance with 1A(i) or 1A(h).

thanks vinly, what will your advice be regarding the appeal .....

and what are the chances. thanks

sean80 wrote:and what are the chances. thanks

not very good dude, sorry

if your actual statement was dated 13th march, then they were technically right

sorry

your lawyer should have known this -- it is a well known fact, they always assess end balance on the evidence provided, and this is in the spirit of legislative intent here -- simply because the rule state that you must HAVE this funds, not HAVE HAD

when the last date provided is assessed, then the assumption is that you still have the funds at the time of your application -- they simply can't verify otherwise

but if the very statement you submit shows that you no longer have the funds, the fact that you have had it for a previous 90-day period is irrelevant

thanks for the honest reply, i understand what you said, but the lawyer stated it in there , and what do you think i could do with the appeal because at as 10th it was already 94 days more than the 90days requested.

sean80 wrote:thanks for the honest reply, i understand what you said, but the lawyer stated it in there , and what do you think i could do with the appeal because at as 10th it was already 94 days more than the 90days requested.

i doubt if that would work.

the mainteanance funds must have been in your account for 90 CONSECUTIVE days.

breaking it down further, this means that the money must not drop less than 900 within 90 continuos days

Am not sure if you understand it did not drop for 94 cosecutive days just dnt know how i can defend my self fior the appeal because d document shows 2more days after the 94days it dipped , but its pointless keeping the money in my account after their requirement have been met and exceeded

sean80 wrote:Am not sure if you understand it did not drop for 94 cosecutive days just dnt know how i can defend my self fior the appeal because d document shows 2more days after the 94days it dipped , but its pointless keeping the money in my account after their requirement have been met and exceeded

Check your in box, sent you a PM.