http://www.freemovement.org.uk/2012/...cue-yes-again/
fairness is what the judges and court like
when it comes to fee payments in both postal and in-person applications and notes the vast differences in approach between the two. Apparently, with postal applications, the applicant’s payment sheet is shredded (for security reasons) by the UKBA and if the fee cannot be collected, the rest of the application and supporting documents are returned to the applicant. Further, no record is kept of what went wrong with the payment.
From this, the UT concluded that the best evidence of whether an application was accompanied by the fee would clearly be the original information page supplied by the Appellant and that the best evidence of why an attempt to process a payment failed would be the record kept by whoever processed the payment, i.e. the UKBA. However, as is clear from the information set out above, both of these are items of evidence which cannot possibly be made available as they are either shredded at the time that the application is returned as invalid or not kept as a record!
Most importantly, the UT considered that the evidential burden as to whether an application was accompanied by the fee payment firmly rests with the UKBA
Quote Reply
Originally Posted by Terpe
) as we can meet the requirements even under the new rules. I just wondered before as I have read from other forum that some have been requested of recent bank statements/payslips etc. after their applications have been in the pile for months. 
