FLR(M) Application - Definition of "Submitted" for Immigration Rule 34G(3)

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Home Office should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Home Office,

On 29 November 2018 the premium service application process for the online FLR(M) application (extension of leave to remain) was moved to the new Sopra Steria system from the old PSC system.

Under the old PSC system, a premium service appointment user could apply online using the gov.uk FLR(M) application form and book an appointment at a PSC up to 45 days in advance of the PSC appointment itself. The date of the PSC appointment itself (not the date of payment for the appointment online) was deemed to be the date of application submission for the purposes of Immigration Rule paragraph 34G(3).

This rule states that the application date of a leave to remain application will be:

"(3) where the application is made via the online application process, and there is no request for a fee waiver, the date on which the online application is submitted"

Please confirm for the new Sopra Steria system whether the date of submission for the FLR(M) online application is deemed for the purposes of the Immigration Rules to be the date the application is paid for online or the date the Sopra Steria appointment is attended.

The implications of this definition are key for determining when an appointment can be booked, for example if the definition of "submitted" means when the Sopra Steria appointment is attended, then one can pay for the FLR(M) application before the final 28 day period in which an extension application must be made, but attend the actual appointment within the final 28 day period.

Interpretation of "submitted" as being the Sopra Steria appointment date would be in line with the previous PSC appointment interpretation.

Yours faithfully,

Sebastian Wallace

FOI Requests, Home Office

Mr. Wallace,

Thank you for contacting the Home Office with your request.

This has been assigned to a caseworker (case ref 51407). We will aim to send you a full response by 04/01/2019 which is twenty working days from the date we received your request.

If you have any questions then please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you,

P. Zebedee
FOI Requests
Home Office

show quoted sections

FOI Requests, Home Office

Dear Mr. Wallace

 

Please be aware that we have decided to handle your correspondence of 03
December 2018 outside the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.
This is because it does not meet the criteria for a Freedom of Information
request, as it does not ask for recorded information.

 

Below is a link to the ICO guidance for the criteria for valid requests
under the Act:

[1]https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...

 

We will provide an answer to your query, but it will be answered outside
of the provisions of the Act.  You should expect to receive a response in
due course.

 

N McKenzie

Home Office

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI Requests,

Thank you. I look forward to your response soon. As long as I receive a full and clear response with an answer to my question of interpretation, I will be content.

Notwithstanding this, for the record I would contend that my request does fit within the rules of the FOIA. I am requesting information from the Home Office in relation to its interpretation of the term "submitted" in immigration rule 34G(3) which it must or should use when determining the validity of visa applications. The original request was phrased as a question with background which is still valid under Section 8(1)(c). The request was therefore intended to ask for recorded information, on the assumption that the interpretation of such an important part of the immigration rules had clear rules of interpretation used internally at the Home Office. Your initial triage and categorisation of the request therefore infers that this question of interpretation has not yet been considered or documented by the Home Office, and therefore is an issue requiring consideration not just for an answer to my question, but also to ensure in future there is no erratic, inconsistent or capricious decisions made in the consideration of leave to remain visa applications in the context of the term "submitted" in immigration rule 34G(3).

Alongside the answer to my initial question, please provide clear reasoning for why my original request did not fit within the rules of the FOIA for "not asking for recorded information".

Yours sincerely,

Seb Wallace