The ongoing complaint.

March 09

Receive the last Medical file.
Addressed incorrectly – so it we were very lucky to get it at all.
It was also copied so faintly that it was almost illegible.
We managed to scan it so that it was readable.
The MA signed off on the assessment on the 3rd March – when the CO said he would be away.

26.3.09
Letter to Regional Manager
Telling him that we have now received the visa, but we are still not satisfied with the lack of response to our concerns and commenting that his response so far merely offers platitudes.
We raise the 11 most important points that still need to be addressed.

1. Abuse, accusations and Lies from FRT and her refusal to be helpful.
2. The fact that FRT clearly made an assumption that Dad had an Appendix 10 condition, and became abusive when her inconsistencies were pointed out (she is a lay person and cannot comment on health issues).
3. The problem with the UK Medical Assessor doing an inadequate job, and that this is backed up by RRB Appeal 16035 which resulted in an overturned decision.
4. Policy states that the MA has to show that an applicant has an unacceptable standard of health – not the other way round.
5. The case officers refusal to “work with” us and do his job.
6. The case officers failure to handle our concerns properly, and his lies, causing our MP to be prejudiced against our case.
7. CO refusal to send the only specific info that the MA asked for and the inconsistency of now being able to make decisions about what the MA needs to see and when.
8. The fact that it was the CO screw up that meant the MA asked for this last piece of information, in continually asking us to repeat the sending of old documents.
9. The fact that the CO appears to have lied about when the MA was available to look at the last set of tests. Originally saying the MA was away and unavailable till mid march, and yet the form was signed off on the 3rd of march.
10. The CO appears to have tried to ensure that we would not receive the medical notes by addressing the envelope incorrectly, and photocopying the documents so fine they were almost illegible.
11. The branch manager failed to follow proper procedures in dealing with the complaint, and not once did he step in and stop both the CO and Head of the FRT for their abuses.

Overall we point out that what should have happened is we got an apology from the FRT at the start of January followed by a concise and polite clarification for the MA (Not a lay person) as to what was required, and an apology from the CO for refusing to see us back in October.

We look forward to a proper investigation, and we are happy to provide files, as the official one seems a little weak in places.

27.3.09
Email from Regional Manager In response.
Says there are a number of issues raised which will necessitate him undertaking a “proper enquiry”.
Hang on a minute: on the 10.3.09 – he said he had already investigated these matters. Does anyone in NZIS London tell the flippin’ truth?
Says we will have a response in 20 days.

28.4.09
Email to Regional Manager noting that it is now far past the 20 days allowed for a response to our letter and asking him to let us know what the situation is, and if more time is required. Points out that if we do not have a response by tomorrow, then we will escalate the complaint to the Deputy Secretary.

5.5.09
Letter from the office of the Ombudsman received. This refers back the letter and phone call of the 26.2.09 regarding the lack of complaints procedure.
The ombudsman writes that she has written to the Secretary of Labour (Christopher Blake – the CEO of INZ) inviting his comments.
Also notes that we are in the process of making a complaint and if we are unhappy with the outcome then we should contact them again.

5.5.09
Letter to Andrew Annakin – the deputy Secretary of the DOL.
We tell Mr Annakin that the Visas were approved on the 11.3.09.
Unfortunately the Regional manager has tried to fob us off with platitudes, and that we responded to this in a letter on 26th March listing 11 serious issues.
We note that the Regional Manager at this point said he would investigate – clearly he had not done so at the time he first received the complaint, and that we are now way beyond 20 working days.
We ask that Mr Annakin take this matter seriously and investigate the actions of the staff involved.

10.5.09
Full response from the Regional Manager of INZ.
Starts by saying (Again) that INZ is “committed to providing a very high level of service and ensuring timelines in the processing of applications” (Does anyone believe this tripe???)

“There are certainly areas that could be improved”
“I have passed these on to the Branch Manager for London for him to Follow up.”

Guff about FRT taking a “considerable amount of time” explain the detail required as an “experienced immigration officer and manager”. He does acknowledge that FRT could have been more sensitive and recognised the legitimate concerns.
He is happy that FRT did not make an assumption the Dad had an appendix 10 condition, but acknowledges that her emails were blunt and unprofessional.
(I’ve been through these mails numerous times and there is no suggestion at all from FRT that my dad may NOT have an appendix 10 condition – everything she says is that he has one).
Matters regarding the MA and his total lack of ability to mention the Ultrasound has been taken up with him directly – that’s it. Total incompetence and laziness and he still gets paid by the New Zealand taxpayer!
He finds no evidence that the CO lied to us, but that he could have been more helpful. He did not meet the expectations required and this has been taken up with the branch manager.
(Funny – no mention whatsoever about the lies we can prove – I.e. that he lied to the MP’s Office)
States that CO acted within procedure by not sending the Ultrasound to the MA as soon as it was available.
States that the Timelines about the last medicals were because the MA was away at the time stated. (However – he wasn’t as he somehow managed to sign a document when the CO said he was away.)

He is happy that there was no intention to mislead, and completely refuses  discuss the fact that the timing is wrong. (I think the idea is that if they dont mention something – it can’t possibly exist. It must be such a pain that we kept all the emails and can prove what we are saying).
All matters have been taken up with the branch manager, and issues have been discussed with the medical assessors though a “regular dialogue”.

Oddly enough – out of 11 points in our letter, only points 1(sort of), 2, 3 (sort of), 5,7 and 9 have been addressed at all. The others (4,6,8,10,11) are blatantly ignored which is par for the course when trying to make a complaint about INZ: brush over the problems you cant wriggle out of, and ignore anything you just don’t have the guts to answer because you know you screwed it up.

28.5.09
Letter from the office of the DS DoL (Andrew Annakin) acknowledging our letter of 5.5.09. (i.e. they have sat on it for 13 days already! – This is possibly why there are so many holdups with applications – if the head of NZIS won’t deal with things in a timely matter its not a surprise that his staff won’t do it either.
Should have a response in 20 working days.
Gives us an email address for any further queries.

31.5.09
We email DOL advising that we did finally get a response from the RM and enclose the letter.
We point out that this response is wholly inadequate, and a whitewash.
We point out that asking the staff’s manager to have a word with the CO, and FRT is simply an unacceptable way to deal with such abuses of the system as we have been subjected to, particularly the RM’s assertion that the CO did not lie, when we have proof that he did.
We ask that these issues be resolved.

11.6.09
Letter from Andrew Annakin (Deputy Secretary DOL (Workforce)) Head of Immigration New Zealand to a “Ms Winterbottam & Mr Heywood”

Bloody hell – 18 months later and these people still cant even get our names right. There are just no words…

A professional approach to correctly addressing correspondence, and NZIS getting their facts straight would probably help. Again – if the head of Immigration does such a crap job – its not really any wonder that the rest of the department is a mess.

Claims that it is clear that the Regional manager has investigated fully, and that he has provided a substantive response.
Points out that the regional manager has apologised, and that he has referred this to the branch manager. He is confident that the branch manager will take appropriate action.

(Any one else believe this horse crap???)

Where are we now?

5.6.09
The Auditor Generals report is released – and our complaint gets mentioned. While we were doing research into how to make a complaint about NZIS (and not finding anything) – we has come across the fact that the Office of the Auditor General was working on a report. We contacted them, but by that time, the bulk of the investigation had already been concluded and they were just sorting out the final report.
So we got a bit of a shock to find out that they mentioned us in the report and published our findings about the lack of any written complaints procedure.

20.7.09
We sent a letter back to the Ombudsman referring the complaint to them again. We feel that NZIS are simply refusing to be held accountable for their screw-ups. We know of at least one other migrant who is being treated the same way by the same department in the same branch. This will never change if every level of management within NZIS refuses to accept that there are serious problems with some of their staff abusing their positions.
We wait to hear back from them.

21.7.09
Thanks to the help from the Ombudsman and the Auditor Generals office – the official NZIS complaints procedure is now live and on the NZIS website.

Never think that you do not have the power to make changes. And never give up!

28.7.09
We put my Brother’s residency application into the Wellington branch and cross all fingers and toes that they have learned from this experience and won’t even think of stuffing it up again.

We wait with baited breath…