- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2
Hi Chowkal,chowkal wrote:Agree Simon
I think they have three teams to process an application.
First it goes to a team that does fees debit, this happens for all, here services levels are strictly followed, as its income to HO
Second it goes to a team for background check
Third all successfull applications should gets assigned to a case worker, were I believe it is not straight forward, they pick and choose a few applications. And they keep jumping queue to next month applications, without clearing the backlog, just to meet their service levels
Thanks
chowkal wrote:I think there are NO process oOR AND procedure documents
That is a bit contradictory. Check lists are also a process document.chowkal wrote:They are just following a check list
Simon if you think that these questions have been poorly drafted. Then why you dont take time to write in a professional way.secret.simon wrote:Having seen the FOI request, I doubt that most of the questions will be answered in any substantial manner.
FOI requests are designed to access documented information ,so typically statistics or policy decisions. They are not so good for asking questions that start with a "why". The questions should have been drafted to ask the basis of allocation of cases to case workers, for instance, rather than why March applications are being processed while February applications have not been decided.
My feeling is that the questions are so badly drafted that they can be avoided easily by the Home Office. But nonetheless it will be interesting to see what the Home Office answers.
Because, as I said beforeimraniqbal2010 wrote: Simon if you think that these questions have been poorly drafted. Then why you dont take time to write in a professional way.
At least someone took time and made effort to inquire.
Its always easy to criticise then doing it yourself.
In order for me to redraft, firstly I would need to have the information that the OP makes sweeping assertions about, such assecret.simon wrote:FOI requests are designed to access documented information ,so typically statistics or policy decisions. They are not so good for asking questions that start with a "why".
To redraft that question, I would need to know how many such applications were there, over a significant period of time. It would help if I could contrast details of such applications (were they single applicants with no families, as opposed to people with families, for instance?)2) According to freedom of information stats some applications for citizenship approved within 1 day processing time. How is that possible that Home Office completed back home searches on them within 1 day and got response back as well and approved within 1 day.
Under section 12 of the Act, the Home Office is not obliged to comply with an information
request where to do so would exceed the cost limit.
The £600 limit is based on work being carried out at a rate of £25 per hour, which equates
to 24 hours of work per request. The cost of locating, retrieving and extracting information
and preparing the response can be included in the costs for these purposes.
@Simon,secret.simon wrote:@Siraj ud-Daulah
I doubt the Home Office conducts "back home" checks. It does standard background checks, such as taxes, criminal and CCJ checks, etc. Only if something gets flagged in these matters would the Home Office then investigate further, I believe (I'm not certain)
This is conjecture. There is an outstanding FoI request for this information (what a surprise). However, a similar FoI request in 2012 was refused by the Home Office.
On a lighter note, your choice of username is quite interesting. Do I detect a faint hint of irony?
Thanks Sirajsecret.simon wrote:@waiz89k
Thank you for elucidating my point of view regarding background checks. The outcome of John Vine's last report was certainly quite negative for people applying for naturalisation.
As regards the statistics and assertion of 99% in six months that you have quoted, can you provide a link to the source of those statistics and statement?