Now all hell breaks loose!

(Times are given as this really does occur over a single night New Zealand time.)

12.1.09 (11:01pm NZT, 10:01am GMT)
Email from FRT accusing us of cutting the CO out of the loop.

(the last email to FRT went solely to her, it was not copied to the Case officer)

13.1.09 (1:53am NZT, 12:53pm GMT 12.1)
Reply to FRT clarifying that we were not cutting CO out of the loop, no one told us we had to keep him in the loop whilst dealing with FRT.

Once again – they just couldn’t be bothered to tell us something that was important, and then shout at us because we didn’t know it!

13.1.09 (3:35am NZT, 2:35pm GMT 12.1)
FRT sends through more detailed response having reviewed medical information. It is a symphony in emboldend pink!

Answers question on ‘what is acceptable standard of health’ – referring to INZ Operations manual (i.e. cost of $25,000 for rest of life, related to Chronic renal failure or progressive renal disorders)

Note: something important here: FRT teams sends us to the “appendix 10 conditions list”
Which – if you have them, automatically mean you do not have an acceptable standard of health. No where does she say that this may not apply to my dad’s case.

States that it’s only ‘advice’ reiterates that the MA can’t be pressured or questioned.
Clarifies that whilst our GP & specialist reports may say Dad is in an acceptable standard of health, the MA will make up their own mind. (or not as appears to be the case).

Requests we keep separate the role of our Doctors & the INZ MA.

Chooses to stick to the heath issues to get the application back on track, and completely ignore the incompetence of INZ staff, and her CO’s refusal to deal with our issues back in October.

Identifies;
March 2008 medical indicates a worsening control of diabetes, and that kidney function is deteriorating This is the key factor that causes concern for future costs.

Hence a specialist report was requested (Diabetologist), with particular focus on renal function, prognosis & future management.

Then identifies that specialist report is “competent for a GP”, and assumes that the specialist is not in fact a Diabetologist. Fundamentally, GP gives a current state; specialist gives a future state – including consideration of lifestyle and family history.

Questions Diabetologist qualifications: he is only a “consultant physisian” not a diabetologist. Also questoins why these tests were done at an Acute hospital when dad has a chronic condition.

(Which is really funny considering that she has already said that she cannot question the MA, no matter how lax their work, but she seems quite happy to rip a well respected UK NHS Specialist to pieces).

[Rant on]: I find it outstanding that someone who claims not to be in a position to question the MA, feels she knows enough about medicine to make these calls. As a pharmacist – I think she should shut the hell up and stop pretending she knows what she’s talking about. I do know what I’m talking about, and while I may not be qualified to give “immigration advice” I damn well am qualified to know that the MA is being an arrogant tosser and the Diabetologist has earned the right to the title! [Rant off].

Identifies that, despite questioning his qualifications, The Diabetologist suggested further tests, and that we should have ‘known’ that the MA would ‘expect’ us to get these tests ourselves and send the information in – or provide an explanation from the specialist as to why the suggested tests are not needed.

Comments on the test results of 17th September (Only a vague comment about decreased kidney function ‘may not be to do with diabetes’ and that the Diabetologist is correct to say he can’t provide an opinion on Dads fitness to emigrate) & 29th September which isn’t detailed or precise enough, because it was done by a GP and not a Specialist.

Apparently, our response of 25th October, from the Kidney Specialist, is what the MA was actually looking for.

(Pity he couldn’t have just said that!)

The MA then “remembered” about the other tests Dr Sawers’ mentioned five months ago.

INZ put blame on us for not providing a good enough GP’s report (they asked for a GP’s report in the first instance, with a vague comment about it may or may not be good enough), they then blame us for not providing a good enough Specialist report to cover the MA’s concerns , after they didn’t like the GP’s report and wanted a Specialist report. The MA only “remembered” these other tests because the CO sent him some old results after asking us to re-provide them.

When the MA asked specifically for the renal specialist review on 25th October, we finally get to what they are concerned about.

Again reiterates we can decline to provide further medical information, and what will happen if we do this.

13.1.09 (4:56am NZT, 3:56pm GMT 12.1)
We reply, expressing thanks, and seeking clarification on a couple of points.
We’re being let down by CO, causing confusion with the MA by forcing us to resend old tests.
Ultrasound is only now being requested, 5 months on. Why are we at ‘fault’ for not mind reading and ‘knowing’ the MA would want this (and the other mentioned tests).
Seeks clarification on exactly what the MA wants: tests, results or analysis.

13.1.09 (5:03am NZT, 4:03pm GMT 12.1),
FRT replies stipulating that the ‘extra tests the MA refers to are those mentioned by the Diabetologist”

(In fact, in no communication received by us to date, have we been made aware that the MA had asked for those tests. The MA may have asked the CO, but that has not been passed on,all the MA has asked for is an ultrasound)

And that, ‘MA would have expected you to be aware of it [The Diabetologist note about tests] and be organising these off your own bat”.
We have to find out from our Dr’s what the tests are for, why they are needed - it is apparently not up to the MA to ask for what tests he needs.

13.1.09 (5:23am NZT , 4:23pm GMT 12.1),
Reply again to FRT expressing further concern.
Express concern that it doesn’t matter what tests our GP’s may have mentioned, if it’s not what the MA has asked for.
Request clarification with the MA as to what they are wanting.

13.1.09 (5:38am NZT, 4:38pm GMT 12.1)…
Further reply from FRT
Back round in circles, we have to find out from Dr Sawers why he thought it worth mentioning the tests, and have them performed.
Identifies that apparently the MA asked for these tests, and quotes the MA – however the quote only references the ultra sound, not the additional tests.
Still unclear whether the MA has actually asked for the additional tests or not and FRT refuses to find out from the MA.

13.1.09 (6:19am NZT, 5:19pm GMT 12.1),
We reply to FRT trying to figure out a course of action.
Looking for a clear course of action not continued vagueness that doesn’t meet the MA’s requirements.
Clarify that the ultrasound has been organised, as have the additional tests.

13.1.09 (6:25am NZT, 5:25pm GMT 12.1)
CO replies identifying that the Nephrologist should do the report is he’s doing the ultrasound.
FRT has gone home (all right for some!)

13.1.09 (8:01am NZT, 7:01pm GMT 12.1)
Hubby replies to CO requesting clarification if the Kidney Specialist (rather than the Diabetologist) is acceptable to INZ to do all the reports, not just the ultrasound.

At this point – I go to the local doctors in a bit of a state to get some sleeping tablets. While the FRT  gets to go home after a day at the office – she has kept me up all night refusing to answer basic, simple questions, and refusing to find out exactly what the MA wants to know. My New Zealand GP is also flabbergasted at the fuss, as he is also my Dad’s New Zealand GP and knows that his health is fine.