And still it goes on…

13.1.09 (7:21pm NZT)
We take copies of all the emails to the MP’s office.

13.1.09 (10:11pm NZT 9:11am GMT)

FRT replies with a really pissed off response, and a few personal attacks about me.

“We have both been answered by exhortatory, shouting and borderline rude emails in return.”
 Your wife needs to stop putting pressure on us to provide what we will not and cannot provide: i.e. an ironclad guarantee that something will be all right before the MA has even seen the extra information.

I’m sorry the medical process is so hard for you to understand.
 The process is the same for all applicants, but some people are always going to have more trouble with it, either because they don’t understand, they resent being asked for more information (which is not unusual), they take MAs’ comments about their health personally and get offended, or they have health issues.
 I thought you didn’t get it at all, which is why I’ve spent such a lot of time providing advice, and trying to break it down into steps. It’s much more than I’ve spent for other applicants who don’t have language problems. .

If your wife could rark down the hectoring tone, insulting remarks about the MAs and her Case Officer, demands for a decision to be made, threats and capital words (does she know that this is the email equivalent of shouting at somebody?), that would also be appreciated. “

So there you have it – from the keyboard of the head of the Family Residence Team in London INZ – The process is the same for everyone [Cough] BS [Cough]. And apparently I should be lucky to get even this much help – usually this is only reserved for stupid people and foreign language applicants (which I thought was a nice touch).

BTW – I do understand the process – what I didn’t get at the time, and still don’t is why the MA is ignoring the test results which say there is no problem, and why both the CO and FRT refuse to ask the MA why he is doing this. Also, we have never asked for a guarentee. We have asked for the CO, FRT and especially the MA to do their jobs properly and ask specifically for the information they need. This is really important, because FRT is accusing us of trying to find out what answers we need to give so we can dodge the system– whereas what we are actually asking for is for the MA to ask the right questions.

14.1.09 (11:12pm NZT, 10:13am GMT)
Hubby replies to email from CO on 13.1.09.
Clearly identify that Helen is very stressed out by the email correspondence.
Clarify we’ve had no apology from INZ for the confusion they (or the MA) have caused.
Identifies what we, in our judgement, have decided to do. Points out that far from insulting people – I am making complaints based on an appalling lack of information, and professionalism from the people involved in this case.
We mention that had the CO taken an hour out of his day back in October to speak to two of the taxpayers that pay his wages – then all this might have been sorted out then.

Hubby also explains that we are well aware of email etiquette thank you (After all New Zealand does pay him a substantial salary – way in excess of that of a Visa officer to be an IT Professional), but that obviously our usual emphasis was getting lost in the emails (as often happens between different email programs), and that FRT should refrain from making yet more accusations. (especially given that the woman things it’s perfectly acceptable to write emails in fluffy emboldened pink)

Reaffirms that we will decline to provide any further medical information after the ultrasound and additional tests.

We also provide, for the information of the FTR, that the Diabetologist is in fact qualified to comment, and that she should not make snotty comments about the fact that the tests were done at an Acute Hospital. (As a pharmacist – I was still particularly offended that someone who works in Immigration believes that they are in a position to make derogatory remarks about a healthcare system and medical profession she clearly knows diddlysquat about! And that’s without accounting for the bloody hypocrisy of claiming that they wont go back to the MA because he is the next reincarnation of God!”)

PS – FYI – The Diabetologist used is;
Clinical Director Medical network specialities
Clinical Lead Diabetes & Endocrinology

He reports directly to the Medical Director for the division of medicine, Cumbria University Hospitals NHS trust.
This is the new name for the North Cumbria Acute Hospitals NHS trust, and the use of the word acute in the old name of the hospital has no context here: Cumbria does not have the number of Hospitals that London does, so we cant be as choosy about the names.

Please find enclosed the definition of a Diabetologist.
You will see that our Diabetologist being listed as a Consultant Physician does not in any way mean he is not a Diabetologist, and is unqualified to report on Dad’s diabetes. He is the specialist we were referred to.

“The term Diabetologist is used in several ways. In North America over the last 40 years it is most often used for an internist who through practice and interest develops expertise in diabetes care without having formal training or board certification in endocrinology. Diabetology is not a recognized medical specialty and has no formal training programs leading to board certification. In other contexts the term Diabetologist refers to any physician, including endocrinologists, whose practice and/or research efforts are concentrated mainly in diabetes care.”
Wikipedia.
(This information was readily available if FRT had been arsed to look for it!)


15.1.09 (1:01am NZT, 14.1.09 12:01pm GMT)
Reply from FRT
Ignores the majority of what we’ve said, and just expresses satisfaction that the additional tests are being done.
Identifies that Diabetologist has to include in his response confirmation of his qualifications to provide the report. (Cheeky sod!)

15.1.09
Email to CO, FRT and Branch Manager with results from Ultrasound performed by Nephrologist as requested by the MA.
Also mention that additional tests mentioned Diabetologist back in July, and still not specifically requested by the MA, are due by 21st – with an opinion taking longer.
Reply from CO, requesting all results are sent together.
Reply back to CO, requesting that ultrasound is sent immediately to the MA, as this is what they asked for.

16.1.09
Email sent to Diabetologist’s secretary, requesting further analysis of information and seeking clarification of points noted by INZ, specifically that INZ do not believe that he was qualified to do the tests. We pre-empted this with a phone call – as Doctors can get a bit riled when you question them (10 years experience as a pharmacist pays off again!). The secretary was wonderful – if a little gobsmacked at the stupidity of the INZ staff!

16.1.09
Email from CO
Requesting all results before sending on.

16.1.09
Email to CO
Requesting he send through the ultra sound, as this was the one specific piece of information the MA asked for. (indeed – in over 1 year of our lives this is the ONLY specific test the UK MA has bothered to ask for!).

16.1.09
Email from CO
Refuses to send ultrasound results to the MA on the basis that they are still waiting for other tests results the MA has requested. This is incorrect. Despite repeated requests from ourselves to clarify what the MA wants, and INZ refusal to find out, we have guessed what they may want. MA & INZ have not made any such request.

19.1.09
Dad requests copies of correspondence from the different MA’s to INZ as any applicant is entitled to do under the Official Information Act. I want to see what exactly has been going on and if the lack of information we have been getting is from the MA or because the CO hasn’t been sending on the right information.

20.1.09
Email from CO saying that files will be sent within 20 working days.

27.1.9
File from CO sent with complete NZIS records
NOTE: within the records from the Application Management System (which are truly awful and confusing) we found the email that the Case Office sent to the MP’s office. We then understood why the MP’s secretary was a bit standoffish all of a sudden.
Email from CO to the secretary at our local MP’s office around 7.1.09
CO states that it ought to be noted that dadhas asked for extensions to supply medical information.
This is highly dishonest – we asked for 1 single extension in 12 months!
We were given 60 days to respond – it took 65 days.
This issue was responded to in emails to FRT, who also tried to blame the delays on us.
CO also states that he has had to point out that info provided was “rather scant”.
This is also not a true reflection as CO received further info a few days later, and he was well aware of this fact when writing to the MP’s office.
CO states that as a layperson he cannot tell if the requests are specific enough.
But we have told him repeatedly that they are not – and he has ignored us.
He also cannot honestly claim that he is unable to determine if the requests from the MA are vague if in the very same email he is able to complain that a letter from the Diabetologist is “scant”.
This email is highly prejudicial and shows a high degree of dishonesty in the CO’s dealings with this case.
It also highlights the double standards being applied by the staff involved.