It's a different 'game' now lastlid.Originally Posted by lastlid
I understand what you're saying, but under the 'old rules' the ECO's and their supporting assistants and caseworkers had a lot of discretion in their decision making.
To my way of thinking, this meant supplying enough evidence to make refusal a very difficult decision for them. Some folks (quite rightly) needed to cover all the possible angles they could imagine.
I know a lot of people thought that Brian and Noreen went over the top, but I certainly didn't , especially given their specific circumstances and the propensity of ECO's to misinterpret such circumstances.
I think I said at the time better to supply more than enough than not quite enough.
Under these new rules the ECO and their team cannot excercise any discretion at all
Gross Income is 'king'
Here's what UKBA say:-
So in a way (in my mind at least) it's important to submit every piece of evidence that forces the ECO to tick the box.Caseworkers must not exercise any discretion or flexibility with regard to the level of the financial requirement: £18,600 (or the relevant higher figure for a child or children) is the amount to be met in all cases. It is a matter of public policy to introduce a financial requirement based on an income threshold for the sponsorship of partners and children, and a threshold means a threshold: it must be clear and consistent in all cases.
If a P60 is mentioned as being of importance in support of meeting that threshold then submit it.
But as I say that's just my opinion as part of a strategy to minimise risks.
