UK HOME OFFICE REQUEST FOR MORE INFO

[secret.simon]

I note everyone contribution here, but please also in return note that ‘legal’ and ‘lawful’ are NOT the same thing, legal aka legislation (aka defined by contracts – one has to consent – noting one can also decline to consent – the right to say no), the law (the law of the land; such one is born into, it is inalienable and indelible – it cannot be changed and is not defined by legislation) - it applies to everyone born in the UK.

Legislation makes new law and changes existing law. That is the very definition of legislation.

The law (including all current legislation) is the law, whether you consent to it or not. If you do not like the law, lobby your MP to amend it by (guess what) legislation. You can say no to legislation, but if properly enacted, it still applies to you even if you say no.

[5mash]

legislation does not make new law.

legislation is the realm of contract (it binds agreements), and as every contract needs consent, consent can also be declined: we all have the lawful right to say no.

I do not have to lobby any MP for anything, as they too come under legislation, as they are legal fictions; they are registered companies. Every MP is a registered company; how do you think they fiddled their expenses so easily; via their self assessment return and against their off-set before corp tax.

The mere enactment (processes and theatrics of a by gone age where actual laws were made - as they were declared nationwide... enactment of legislation does not make laws - its mere tradition to the former) of legislation makes it legal (not lawful), unless one actually says 'no I do not consent'.

[bathanza]

I laid claim to a previous application to extend and the documents accepted by their business (with redacted info) I provided to them, and I laid claim that I would not provide additional info outside of their application form unless they could highlight to me specifics they are looking for, which I then touched upon if needed; should be included in the application form in the first instance if it were for the HO to make a decision upon, that the case handler should follow their own rules and apply the legislation as is evident, noting they could only use the info provided for the sole purpose to align against their rules and the current application, and that anything outside of this would not be consented to, unless they (HO) could show cause for such 'further investigation' of which I wanted to be informed about in the first instance. I wouldn’t provide additional info without first being told why it was needed. I did however mention I have the lawful (not legal) right to privacy, outside of their rules, and I didn't have to explain why I redacted anything except for privacy.

Basically I felt the HO were abusing their perceived authority; under their terms and conditions and I gently reminded them to process the info as provided (I felt the HO was looking for ways to decline the application and to scrutinise without warrant the info provided), I wasn’t rude or drastic in my wording, but I wanted them (HO) to focus on the alignment of info provided and the legislation it pertains to, anything outside of that could not be considered unless I was informed.

In all it worked (as I knew it would as I made them (HO) aware I am under the law not their legalities, on anything outside of their application), and we received all documents back and no more mention of redacted info etc or reasons why I had redacted them.

Food for thought on this one.

I wouldn't have been brave enough to challenge the HO as there are documented and evidence on the way Case Workers use incentives or "if you piss them off, you get a rejection". I was mortified that I had to share the most personal accounts and information about my relationship and just had in mind "its the rules, it's okay", but to be honest, was never comfortable with giving this over based on advice. Glad you have managed to get the extension. (link to HO staff rewards
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... t-vouchers)

[5mash]

I appreciate the positive comments, I too was not comfortable to provide info up and above what their application requested; at least without knowing why, knowing the HO had accepted such before.

Sure I was on a knife edge knowing the HO could reject, if they thought I was being an arse, but it's why I sent the letter under NOTICE, and served it to them, the wife truly believes that if I merely wrote a letter to them in the post the HO would have rejected straight out.

It may have been luck, or whatever one wants to call it, but I used the law and presented my distaste logically and precisely, and reminded them of their place and what their legal duty was under their own terms and conditions (regulations), and what my lawful rights are.

I pushed the argument based on principle, it paid off, I did hedge my bets as it were, as I know the law (not legalities) and how to apply it, that's not to say it will always work first time, but I did have several avenues to press if the first did not align the HO, thankfully I did not have to, as it would have been drawn out (the wife would have def be in despair). Looking towards settlement, I will look for the less stressful avenue, as the wife will kick my butt.