PSW on ACCA Fundamental Papers

Deepshithole2010 · Post by **Deepshithole2010** » Thu May 31, 2012 1:56 pm

You haven't advised the reason for your refusal. In your previous post you have indicated that your maintenance fund went below £800,is that the reason or is it that the judge did not recognized ACCA Fundamental to be equivalent to a degree hence ineligible for PSW.

Could you kindly clarify the above points,please.

simqa · Post by **simqa** » Thu May 31, 2012 2:03 pm

Yes the main reason is that the judge said Acca is not equivalent to uk degree as it doesn't have degree awarding power I had uk naric as well as previous case ref but he said that I am not bound to follow the old cases

Post by **PaperPusher** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:51 am

http://www.ait.gov.uk/Public/Unreported/IA223312011.doc

http://www.ait.gov.uk/Public/Unreported/IA264602011.doc

http://www.ait.gov.uk/Public/Unreported/IA239342011.doc

Three recent unreported decisions about ACCA and PSW.

They all lost.

One does mention the unreported decision where the student won Raja v Secretary of State for the Home Department IA/31882/2010.

simqa · Post by **simqa** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:29 am

I did mention that case even my close friend got visa I did mention his case as well but from recently new rule of 4 April they r not accepting Acca
Well I m going for high court now will see if I have my luck over there
I the mean while plz do let me knw if anybody gets psw on Acca thanks

Deepshithole2010 · Post by **Deepshithole2010** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:07 pm

I have read in different forums that few people had taken HO to high court on the issue of not recognizing ACCA as a valid qualification for PSW and they were offered an out of court settlement provided they don't publicise their case and they were asked to withdraw with all of them being granted a PSW Visa.

This is unsubstantiated and may be a rumour, but whats important is since that case HO have made several amendments, so they eliminate any weaknesses in the rule.

Its worth a try but you need to be consider the associated cost of doing this. And also HO is in much better situation to fight this as they have covered all legal points which was lacking in the original case.

Generally you wouldn't expect HO to do an out of court settlement but it would have been very humiliating as well as risky for HO to lose the case and that would also set a precedent for thousands of other cases to follow. Therefore they opted for a safer option. This generally doesn't imply that HO would have lost the case and all evidence were against them but they have taken a sensible approach to fix their own weaknesses and then give themselves a lot better chance to defend if someone in a similar situation wants to take them to court.

msk47 · Post by **msk47** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 4:14 pm

PaperPusher wrote:http://www.ait.gov.uk/Public/Unreported/IA223312011.doc

http://www.ait.gov.uk/Public/Unreported/IA264602011.doc

http://www.ait.gov.uk/Public/Unreported/IA239342011.doc

Three recent unreported decisions about ACCA and PSW.

They all lost.

One does mention the unreported decision where the student won Raja v Secretary of State for the Home Department IA/31882/2010.

Post by **PaperPusher** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 4:49 pm

Enlighten us then!

msk47 wrote:
PaperPusher wrote:http://www.ait.gov.uk/Public/Unreported/IA223312011.doc

http://www.ait.gov.uk/Public/Unreported/IA264602011.doc

http://www.ait.gov.uk/Public/Unreported/IA239342011.doc

Three recent unreported decisions about ACCA and PSW.

They all lost.

One does mention the unreported decision where the student won Raja v Secretary of State for the Home Department IA/31882/2010.

msk47 · Post by **msk47** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:00 pm

in the first decision the judge has said that he has been given no evidence that suggests the ACCA has degree awarding power by virtue of act of parliment of royal charter. now to my understanding it is the lawyer's fault who did not take a copy of ACCA's royal charter to the court.

in the second decision the letter from kaplan saying ACCA f1-f9 gives exemptions to accounting degree and normally students go to third year of degree qualification if they wish to do a degree after part-qualification. now this letter clearly gives an impression to the judge that ACCA f1-f9 is not equivalent to degree level hence it was refused. no offence but applicant/or their lawyer should have read and understood the letter from kaplan before sending it as supporting evidence.

the third decision has everything in it, firstly the letter from kaplan with the same wording as above in decision two,
secondly applicant had not provided an equivalence letter from ACCA. below is direct quote from the decision para 8.
"There is no suggestion in this Certificate that ACCA considered that the Fundamentals Level of its own ACCA course as comparable to a British Bachelor (Honours) degree"
thirdly the issue was wether or not the letter from NARIC should be accepted as determinative. para 17 of decision
"As UK NARIC expressly accepts, its service, although based on informed opinion, should be treated only as guidance"

In my opinion the lawyers representing the applicants were not prepared to answer the questions raised by respected judges. now that questions have been raised on NARIC's letter Its going to be a tough job for lawyers. you stand a better chance if you choose a lawyer who have dealt with these cases before.
(this is my personal opinion and could be wrong therefore i am open for corrections)

Post by **Greenie** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 6:09 pm

Greenie wrote:There are a number of flaws in your argument:

1) A royal charter is a formal document granted by the monarch giving an individual or a corportate entity a right or a power. That power may be to award degrees, it may equally be used to establish a city, company or to grant a body a power to award other qualifications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_charter

http://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/royal-charters/

Just because an organisation has been granted a power/established by a royal charter, doesn't mean they can all award degrees. For example - the constitutional basis of the BBC is the royal charter - does the BBC therefore claim it can award degrees?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/about/how ... agreement/

2) A recognised body is an institution granted degree awarding powers by royal charter, all such organisations are listed here:

http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/higher-e ... sed-bodies

You will note that ACCA does not appear on this list, instead it appears on the list of listed bodies, which are institutions or bodies, which, deliver courses that lead to degrees awarded by Recognised Bodies.

http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/higher-e ... ted-bodies

Hence, ACCA deliver a course that can lead to a degree awarded by Oxford Brookes. It cannot itself award degrees.

3) The requirement is that you have been awarded a degree at bachelors, masters or PhD level. The requirement is not that you have been awarded a qualification equivalent to a degree.

I cannot see that you can therefore argue that completing the fundamental ACCA papers alone, means that you score the points for qualification as

a) The requirement is that you have been awarded a bachelors, masters or PhD degree, PGCE, PGDE or Scottish HND
b) The qualification is none of the above
c) ACCA does not have degree awarding powers

All qualifications are set out on the nqf however the fact that you have been given a student to undertake an nqf 6 course does not mean that this course meets the requirements for psw.[/quote]

malik5805 · Post by **malik5805** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:30 pm

hello everyone i also applied on the basis of fundamental level after reading all those three cases i think SMK is ryte because all those lawyer coundlt handle the cases as they shud be...I wonder wat happening to tht guy whoz got psw solely base on the ACCA without even going on appeal..
Reagrds

Post by **Greenie** » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:51 pm

malik5805 wrote:hello everyone i also applied on the basis of fundamental level after reading all those three cases i think SMK is ryte because all those lawyer coundlt handle the cases as they shud be...I wonder wat happening to tht guy whoz got psw solely base on the ACCA without even going on appeal..
Reagrds

its nothing to do with the lawyers and everything to do with the fact that the applicants haven't been awarded a UK recognised degree.

Post by **Greenie** » Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:24 am

simqa wrote:I did mention that case even my close friend got visa I did mention his case as well but from recently new rule of 4 April they r not accepting Acca
Well I m going for high court now will see if I have my luck over there
I the mean while plz do let me knw if anybody gets psw on Acca thanks

you can't go to the high court if your appeal has just been dismissed by the first tier tribunal. You have to apply for permission to appeal to the upper tribunal.

Deepshithole2010 · Post by **Deepshithole2010** » Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:30 am

Moreover the current timescale at the Upper Tribunal is ridiculously long ......for permission to appeal it takes about 1 month and then the case to be listed in the UT there is minimum wait for 4-5 months after which it takes further 2-4 weeks for the judge to make a determination. So if you are looking to go to high court you are probably looking around a year till your decision is reached.

And as we all know time=money

You need to ask yourself is it really worth!

simqa · Post by **simqa** » Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:45 pm

Is there any other option then

malik5805 · Post by **malik5805** » Sun Jun 03, 2012 9:51 pm

hello does anyone knw if my visa get refuse is thier any other ooption where we can switch coz i i am worried now does anyone knw about how long appeal take on lower court then upper court and how long takes in high court .....is there anyone who won there appeal let us know aswell...regards

King_Khan · Post by **King_Khan** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 4:56 pm

My appeal was allowed solely on the basis of fundamentals level of ACCA.

I haven't received my copy of decision yet, waiting for this long weekend to get over.... Will share my decision papers with you guys

msk47 · Post by **msk47** » Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:51 pm

Dear King_Khan
first of all I would like to congrats you for your success and your kindness to share your decision here. I have a few questions about this whole process if you could answer i will be thankful.

1- how long does it take from the date of application to getting BRP card?
2- How much does it cost to hire a lawyer to represent you at FTT?
3- name contact details of your lawyer?

Thanks again for sharing your decision here. there are some people on this forum who just copy and paste same paragraphs after each positive post saying "there is no psw on acca because its not considered a degree". however it is people like you who boost the confidence and keep the hopes alive.

King_Khan · Post by **King_Khan** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 3:06 am

Thanks msk47.

Well the application processing time pretty much depends on factors I'm not aware of. The only thing that I'm aware of is the dates the biometrics are taken but I know some people who had applied later than the others and got their applications decided earlier. I applied in mid december when there wasn't a huge backlog, got my biometrics done in february and received the decision in late feb. I lodged my appeal within a week and received the confirmation letter from AIT in early March. Got the hearing date in late march. My hearing was in early may and decision was promulgated last week (a copy of which I have not received yet).

Now as far as my case is concerned, I'm not sure when will i get my BRP card. Firstly I'll have to wait for the home office if they are going to appeal against the decision, which is very unlikely and secondly, in case they accept the decision, since there is a huge backlog on Tier 1 section/department of UKBA I'm not expecting the letter from them for sending off my passport any time soon. Even after sending off my passport it will take around a month and half to get the BRP. So I'm forecasting another 2-3 months for that.

The cost of appeal of course depends on the solicitors. It is in the range of £700-£1200. I even know some solicitors who deal with such cases on No Win No Fee basis but I personally don't trust them. I paid my solicitor £800 who had dealt with such cases before.

Post by **Greenie** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:53 am

Why do you think the ukba is unlikely to appeal?

Deepshithole2010 · Post by **Deepshithole2010** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:01 pm

King khan congratulations and i would sincerely hope and pray that you get ur visa.

However my advice would be dont count your chicken till they are hatched as in the past HO is known to have challenged psw on ACCA and the decision from FTT have been subsequently overturned by UTT.

Anyways goodluck and hope for the best and plan for the worst.

I agree that in some instances they may chose to ignore and let it slip through the net, however the possibility of this going to UTT remains high. Keep us updated on your progress.

King_Khan · Post by **King_Khan** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:05 pm

Thanks for ur wishes. Yeah you are right in saying that they can go for appeal but as far as I'm aware of similar cases they have never done so. In rare circumstances they might do so but still I'm prepared for that.

King_Khan · Post by **King_Khan** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:10 pm

Greenie wrote:Why do you think the ukba is unlikely to appeal?

I was wondering if you have any idea about the deadline for them to appeal against the decision if they choose to do so . . ? ? ?

Post by **PaperPusher** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:20 pm

King_Khan wrote:Thanks for ur wishes. Yeah you are right in saying that they can go for appeal but as far as I'm aware of similar cases they have never done so. In rare circumstances they might do so but still I'm prepared for that.

See my links earlier in the thread.

King_Khan · Post by **King_Khan** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 3:31 pm

@PaperPusher - Thanks for your build on this matter. I went through those 3 cases. Only in one of them had the HO appealed against the decision which was allowed. That case was based only on one major mistake on part of the Respondent which was her college letter. It stated after completing fundamentals level she would be given exemptions from UK bachelor's degree and the judge's decision was based more around this point. I personally don't think that this case was properly handled by her representative/lawyer.

The fact that she will be given exemptions from any UK Bachelor's degree is only true if she decides to go for another Bachelor's degree (In which case she will be taking only those subjects which was not included in her ACCA papers). On the basis of fundamentals level one can start any relevant UK Master's degree which essentially implies the fact that Fundamentals level of ACCA is equivalent to UK Bachelor's degree. If anyone doubts that fact, I would give my own example. I've just recently started my Master's degree solely on the basis of my Fundamentals level of ACCA and am currently working on my assignment

Post by **Greenie** » Tue Jun 05, 2012 3:43 pm

you don't necessarily need a UK bachelor's degree to study a master's degree. the point you are still missing is that even if ACCA fundamentals is ' equivalent'to a degree the rules require that you have actually been awarded a UK recognised degree (not a professional qualification at the same level as a degree) by a recognised body with degree awarding powers. ACCA does not have degree awarding powers, and ACCA fundamental papers are not a UK recognised degree.

Perhaps you will get lucky and the UKBA will not appeal but it is rather naive of you to suggest that they won't, and misleading for others.

Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

PSW on ACCA Fundamental Papers

I have read first two decisions and found some errors

Re: I have read first two decisions and found some errors

psw on acca fundamentals