British Government, British Ambassador To The Philippines Christopher Stacey Fraud, visa application instructions do not represent the reality Metro-Manila Manila

As the changes to the way visa applications are now handled was introduced after I left Manila I am not in any position to say whether the new system is an improvement on the way applications were previously handled.    As I am also no longer involved with visas I have no knowledge of what documents or requirements are needed for any type of visa.   However, I understand that each ECO is now expected to precess more applications per day than they were previously but I cannot confirm this.   

You state that you did write to the Embassy after the visa application was refused but you did not say who replied to your letter.   Out of interest I would like to know who was the officer that replied and also who was the officer that refused the original application.    If UKVisa not been satisfied that the draft we gave in reply to your letter to them had covered all the points raised then they would have come back to us asking for futher clarification.

I find it strange that you were able to appeal against a visit visa refusal as was not at that time an appealable type visa.    However, as you say you did I assume that the application was not in fact a visit visa application as you first stated.    If you did make a formal appeal against the refusal then the appeal would have been heard by an Indepenent Adjudicator at a formal hearing in the UK which you would have been invited to attend.    If you attended the formal appeal hearing then you would have had the oppotunity to chalange the refusal.   Given that you say that your appeal was turned down I can only assume that the Independant Adjudicator must have upheld the refusal and full reasons would have been sent in writing to the applicant by the Adjudicator.

You make an interesting point about authenticating but this is something you should take up with UKVisas as they write the rules on visa applications.

Had I still been in Manila or even still involved with visas I would have liked to have a look at this application if only for my own satisfaction.

Okay, let's go through this:

CS: The original report was written in 2008 and the way visas are now dealt with has since changed.   

P: What does this have to do with anything? Or are you admitting that the way visas used to be dealt with is inadequate? In that case you have conceded my point. I am out of pocket either way.

CS: The visa fee paid is for the application to be processed and not for the actual visa so if an application is refused no refund is made.  

P: Granted. But the application should be refused only on grounds that the applicant can reasonably be expected to comply with. If I apply for a passport and fail to send a photo then that is my fault because the application clearly tells you to send a photo. And if I use the checking facility at the Post Office and they tell me that a photo is required but I send the application without one, that is also my fault. If the application does not say this, and the Post Office does not say this either, and yet the passport office keeps my fee, I think that is bad business practice verging on the fraudulent.

This is analogous to the case here. For instance, one of the reasons given for the rejection was that there was no evidence my fiancee and I had personally met. Since we were more or less living together at the time in the Philippines and I went with her when my fiancee submitted her documents, this pissed me off no end. At the very least, the UK VACS who check the documents when they are first submitted might have mentioned it.

And when I ask to be shown where this requirement is written down, or what counts as satisfying it, I get fobbed off with the most vacuous arguments imaginable. How can I be reasonably be expected to comply with requirements that are not written down and you will not tell me what they are even when I ask you? And don't tell me that the UK VACS office is non-governmental -- you employ them so the buck stops with you.

CS: As a visit visa, unlike some other types of visa, is non appealable no appeal can be made as such, however, the three options given by the writer of the complaint would have been open to them.   If they had written to the Embassy then either the ECO or the ECM would have replied.   If the correspondence had come to me for reply then a full review of the application would have been carried out and any additional evidence sent with the letter by the sponsor would have been taken into consideration before I answered the letter.   Likewise if the person had written to their MP or UK Visas then the ECM would have been asked to review the application again and to give a full and complete explanation as to the result of this review.

P: Go and read the article again pal. I did all those things. I appealed the decision but it was turned down on the same grounds as before. I complained to the head of UK visas. What did they do? They sent it to you, the very people I was complaining about. Hardly an unbiased, independent procedure for adjudicating complaints. And you replied in the most vacuous way, implying again that it was my fault for failing to satisfy the requirements despite more or less admitting that they were not in any of the information given out, but that was okay because this information was only "guidelines" and you were trying ot be "flexible." I did write to my MP, who forwarded it to the Home Office, who gave us both a very terse reply saying it was a matter for the head of UK visas, and referred it back to them!

The head of UK visas then gave me a response only marginally less vacuous than the last one. As a complaints procedure this is a joke. I complain to the head of UK visas he refers it back to the embassy, I complain to my MP it gets referred to the head of UK visas! I can't help noticing a certain circularity here. Ultimately I am complaining to the very people I am complaining about. If you try to follow the rules in all good faith and get f***ed, exactly why should people follow the rules? Why shouldn't people stay illegally rather than pay your exorbitant application fees?

On a slightly different matter to illustrate the sheer bureaucratic absurdity of the whole thing, what does the word "authenticate" mean to you? When I looked it up it said "to establish as genuine." When you go abroad you normally end up needing documents to be "authenticated." Are they then established as genuine? Far from it. First of all you have to find a notary to notarize the documents. Does that mean that the document is genuine? No. At best the notary established that you are who you say you are, no more.

You are paying him simply for putting a stamp on your document. Then you have to send it to the FCO. Do they authenticate it? No. At best the FCO authenticates the notary's signature -- they have no more idea whether the document is genuine than the notary. You pay them simply for adding another stamp or piece of paperwork. Then it gets sent to the embassy. Do they authenticate it? No. At best they authenticate the guy at the FCO who authenticated the notary. They are all just "authenticating" each other and at the end of three processes and three sets of fees the actual document is no more likely to be genuine or better established as genuine than it was in the first place.

And they know it, because what you end up with is another document stuck to the front of the others saying "We bear no responsibility for the contents of this document." And they have the nerve to call this "authentication." It just a game invented by bureaucrats for their own amusement and to make money, that does nothing actually useful and makes nobody's lives any better.  

The original report was written in 2008 and the way visas are now dealt with has since changed.   The visa fee paid is for the application to be processed and not for the actual visa so if an application is refused no refund is made.   As a visit visa, unlike some other types of visa, is non appealable no appeal can be made as such, however, the three options given by the writer of the complaint would have been open to them.   If they had written to the Embassy then either the ECO or the ECM would have replied.   If the correspondence had come to me for reply then a full review of the application would have been carried out and any additional evidence sent with the letter by the sponsor would have been taken into consideration before I answered the letter.   Likewise if the person had written to their MP or UKVisas then the ECM would have been asked to review the application again and to give a full and complete explanation as to the result of this review.