need some help

[preacherman]

He does not once mention your barking negligence idea.

I never said he did! but he shows that is fairly new, lots of hassle, and not worth the headache to be a test case!

So I mentioned my negligence idea!.why Not, its fair to impose a duty, if they have been negligent.

I don`t live in barking! you haven't said why its barking.

[preacherman]

He does not once mention your barking negligence idea.

and also that is because he is not me!

is there something silly that would stop a case against a gov compartment? such as there is no obligation for them to grant a visa anyway? would that mean they can be negligent if they want?

[preacherman]

have you thought about getting a few exta quid by getting a job on just answer, expert alice seems helpful!

'in principle, it is possible to sue the Home Office for negligence and there have been many cases in the past where people have been successful in obtaining damages. You would have to prove loss as a result of the negligent act.

[atticus]

Yes, but on what cause of action? Does she think the Home Office can be sued on this ground? Ask her that. *yelllowbloodysplodge*

[preacherman]

Yes, but on what cause of action? Does she think the Home Office can be sued on this ground? Ask her that. *yelllowbloodysplodge*

yellowbloodysplodge did not match any search suggestions in google, its unkown


well i never asked her anything, someone else must have. I think the agents of the home office [vfs global] are cashing in on the fact there is no appeal. They give responses like yellowbloodysplodge to visitor visa applications. Then all you can do is pay again. Agent is akin to principle. So negligence misconduct.

[atticus]

Fine. You have kindly told the Home Office about your savings account, so it will be able to get its costs when your case falls flat on its face.

Paying for a fresh application may be cheaper.

The point, preachy, is that yes the Home Office can be sued, and has been successfully sued. It is not immune from suit. But that does not mean that any and every flawed case has any chance. So look at your case. Look at Caparo. And don't be stupid.

By all means ask your new friend Alice.

[preacherman]

Fine. You have kindly told the Home Office about your savings account, so it will be able to get its costs when your case falls flat on its face.

Paying for a fresh application may be cheaper.

The point, preachy, is that yes the Home Office can be sued, and has been successfully sued. It is not immune from suit. But that does not mean that any and every flawed case has any chance. So look at your case. Look at Caparo. And don't be stupid.

By all means ask your new friend Alice.

Point taken.

[diy]

I didn't read the whole 3 pages in detail, but is it the lack of income they are taking issue with? i.e. you've got money in and or flowing through your account, but you haven't shown a sufficient source of income?

Is it possible you would get approval for a shorter stay?

[preacherman]

I didn't read the whole 3 pages in detail, but is it the lack of income they are taking issue with? i.e. you've got money in and or flowing through your account, but you haven't shown a sufficient source of income?

Is it possible you would get approval for a shorter stay?

that could be part of it I guess But the guidelines for a sponsor say to show evidence that you have sufficient funds, not how you came about them.

as sponsor I provided 4 banks statements, they only quoted 2 in the refusal. They said they could not verify where the funds came from in one account, but I think they are wrong in saying that. It is only if the applicant has recently had a payment into their account that further investigation is advised. I am just sponsoring.

they also said that the applicant has to qualify in their own right. Essentially they are saying a person cant be sponsored, when they can according the legislation.