Premium Service feels wrong

[humanvoid]

Hello folks,

Perhaps it is just me, but I have got an impression that the only difference between postal applications and in-person ones is time, the rest sounds similar from the posted success stories. You are just dumping contents of your folders and decision will be made on basis of documents/evidences submitted at that moment, which does sound much like postal application.

Correct me if I am wrong but what if an additional document or evidence is required for final decision and you may have it by yourself or can get in a short time? I think this maybe crucial as people tend to keep some documents they think of as an optional.

Any thoughts on this appreciated.

[Gagan1986]

True it is quicker. You save yourself from 6 months waiting when you apply through PEO.

Also premium service is only for straightforward cases. If you think your case is complicated where CW would need to do further necessary checks, you are better of applying via post.

Plus postal is cheaper

[saran79]

premium service give you same day decision. I could not wait for 6 months, thinking about biometrics, approval etc. imagine if you have an emergency travel then postal application is a head ache without passport.

[imranh]

so why does it feel wrong???

[humanvoid]

so why does it feel wrong???

Read my post above.

[cs95tdg]

I'm not quite sure what you aim to gain/mean by the question asked in this post. Whether or not you submit an immigration application by post or in-person (premium service), the immigration rules that will be applied to it will be the same. If evidence provided is insufficient, then in both cases you would normally be given the opportunity to provide it (or in some cases we have seen postal applications where the decision has been a refusal, resulting in the applicant either reapplying or appealing the decision.

As you correctly point out, the time factor appears to be the key reason applicants choose in-person PEO appointments (even though you are not guranteed a same day decision). Are you suggesting that this is unfair or “feels wrong” as you put it? It may be I've completely missed what you are trying to say, but I wouldn't consider it to be so.

[humanvoid]

If evidence provided is insufficient, then in both cases you would normally be given the opportunity to provide it (or in some cases we have seen postal applications where the decision has been a refusal, resulting in the applicant either reapplying or appealing the decision.

That's was my point. From stories here, it looks like at PEO CW just asks you to hand in ALL documents you intend to support your application with, similar to what you would do with postal application. CW does not ask for particular documents he needs and asks you to come back in 1 or 2 hours for right decision. In case of missing/insufficient/unverified evidences for postal application it will most likely be rejected as I remember from guidance.
Now will you really "be given the opportunity to provide" evidence at PEO in such situations?

Please post links to stories where this was a case, thanks.

[wpilr_nov12]

Examples like - CW asked for P60, CW asked for Accountant letter etc.. are abundant in this forum. How would such situations have played out (in addition to delaying the decision) on postal applications?

Ultimately each person needs to weigh their personal situations against what they are comfortable doing. There is nothing inherently wrong in either approach (PEO or Postal).

But the more important question would be, why did the applicant choose PEO/Postal? This would provide more measurable insight towards resolving your quandary.

[humanvoid]

In addition I think this is what makes people anxious about documents and they end up collecting and providing unnecessary documents.

I think everyone would agree that if CWs would ask for particular set of documents for each of the categories, that would make life much easier for both sides.

[wpilr_nov12]

Besides the generic 'please provide all evidence in support of your application' statement (and don't ask me to show where in the rules it says so), the Forms/Guidances/Guidelines etc are sufficiently explicit on what needs to be proven by evidence. How that is achieved is unique to each applicant.

It would be impossible to have a set list of documents requirement to fit all within the same category. What if I cannot produce a marriage certificate - not the whole world issues one - but I have been married for 10 years, with 2 kids and the whole lot. This would then trigger an 'exception', which contributes to defeating the whole purpose of a document list in the first place.

[humanvoid]

Examples like - CW asked for P60, CW asked for Accountant letter etc.. are abundant in this forum.

Again it might depend, I am not saying they do not speak to people at all but according to the latest stories, they just tell people to hand over everything and to come back in certain amount of time. That's what worries me. What I was expecting is that case worker would go through your application and supporting documents with you, ask questions along, etc.

And why Solihull should be different to others?

[wpilr_nov12]

Lets get straight to the point if it helps you -

What are your personal concerns about your own ILR application? Anything that you need help with?

Otherwise, you are not going to get a satisfactory answer to your question on debating the pro-s and con-s of this that and other.

[humanvoid]

What are your personal concerns about your own ILR application? Anything that you need help with?

I appreciate your concern and help, I just wanted to share my personal opinion and see if anyone shares it with me.

You are right, discussion turned into debate which not what i wanted at all, but thanks for your thoughts anyways.