Stupid UVI decision - be carefull

[network_engineer]

Hi Hank.

I am (in my ignornance] unaware of any Labour Union giving the immigration authorities a hard time over its stupidity.

Of course, DT is not the norm, he is very active and the exception.

Cheers.

[Hank W.]

My point exactly. But they *should* IMHO, they would have the resources and whatever happened to solidarity?

DT is the fortunate blind corn with the morning chickens, but one sparrow don't make the summer.

[network_engineer]

adincluj:

Please see the personal message that I have sent to you on this forum.

Kind regards.

[odon]

hei adincluj!!

excuse me but what country are u from?, i was from Asia and even tough i went back for my holidays there, the reason i gave was that the finnish embassy was 2,500kms from my home town, and hence not justified,but also mentioned in my appeal that i had given in writting that i wanted to know the decision before i left for my holidays in my home country almost 2 months ahead.

there is a need to get a letter from the labour office( the so called work permit) which states that the labour office approves of this worker as there is shortage of skills in this area, ...this is what he refers by work permit.

another point, when the police on behalf of the UVI, gave u or served you the decision, there should have been a person either the official at the police station or another who will explain to you the decision and then you sign the paper ....from this day you are served and have 30 days to appeal, if it takes time to get a lawyer, you can even appeal in writting on a piece of paper( in your own language or english)....like i did and then later get the lawyer into the picture.

hanks, yes, i think i will have a talk to this friend and see if she will put a article about this ...even though she writes for etela sanomat ..lahti paper.

one more point, if u have got this paper from the labour office, then u will off course get your residence visa if u apply from your home country, there is a stupid rule somewhere that as a non eu person, if u are a student or a tourist then have to apply for your residence permit (work visa) from outside finland preferably form home country!!

strange...

[network_engineer]

Hi Odon, adincluj,

Odon: How much should we care about unwritten and imagined rules that infringe on rights? The Alien's Act 301/2004 [ratified by the Parliament] states that he can apply for the permit in Finland.

I had on a short exchange with one of the most experienced persons in this area, and his view is that the case concerns an application for a worker's residence permit. Furthermore, [in his words, since I am copying the text from his email] - After these issues regarding the need for labour have been settled, it is then up to the police to review the security aspects only. The police are not authorised to review the decision of the employment authority. If this has happened, then it would be exposed immediately on appeal.

Essentially the police must point to some security consideration that justifies their decision to refuse a worker's residence permit. It is not acceptable for the police to tell the court: "we thought the employment authority got it wrong".

And based on his experience and knowledge, this sounds completely correct to me.

adincluj: I won't push you, but for a final time, I would encourage you to contact Daryl straightaway. If you permit on grounds of employment have been ratified by the employment authority (MOL), and if you have been given a decision on the same, send them to Daryl.

A scary though comes to mind: Did you not say that they confiscated your passport? Hopefully, you are still OK?




Kind regards.

[Mark I.]

Reading this makes me ashamed to be a Finn. Some authorities are beyond incompetent, I'd say they are criminals. UVI and police should be taken under tight scrutiny, and those responsible should be brought to justice.

Good luck to you adincluj.

[daryl]

This thread has generated a lot of excited responses and invective for no particularly good reason IMO.

The relevant provision here is point 3 and 4 of paragraph 1 of section 49 of the Aliens Act:

Ilman oleskelulupaa maahan saapuneelle ulkomaalaiselle myönnetään tilapäinen tai jatkuva oleskelulupa Suomessa, jos edellytykset tällaisen oleskeluluvan myöntämiseksi ulkomailla ovat olemassa ja:
…
3) työntekijän tai elinkeinonharjoittajan oleskeluluvan myöntämättä jättäminen Suomesta haettuna olisi ulkomaalaisen tai työnantajan kannalta perusteetonta; taikka
4) oleskeluluvan epääminen olisi ilmeisen kohtuutonta.

The intention of this provision is to establish a main rule: the first residence permit must be obtained before arriving in Finland. Rightly or wrongly, this is usually understood as the core of immigration control.

The provision also details certain exceptions to the main rule that have generated a good deal of controversy in the past. Like all exceptions, they must be interpreted narrowly, so as not to erode the effect of the main rule.

The exception at point 4 excludes "manifestly unreasonable refusals", as it was noticed at an early stage that rigid application of the main rule can lead to situations that are not acceptable in a civilised democratic society. I only mention point 4 here because theoretically it could cover the case in hand. However, based on everyting that the applicant has said, I don't think point 4 applies here. For example there is no risk of a significant human rights violation in this case.

The really interesting question is whether point 3 applies, and which authority should be responsible for deciding on how to apply point 3 in the case of a migrant worker. On the face of it, the relevant authority is the local employment office, as it is here that consideration is given to the situation of the employee and the employer. However, the government bill says the following about point 3:

Momentin 3 kohta sisältäisi säännöksen työntekijän ja elinkeinonharjoittajan oleskeluluvan myöntämisen edellytyksistä ulkomaalaiselle, joka oleskelee Suomessa ilman voimassa olevaa määräaikaista oleskelulupaa. Kohdan tarkoittamissa tilanteissa olisi kyse esimerkiksi maassa viisumilla tai viisumivapaasti oleskelevasta matkailijasta. Lisäedellytyksenä luvan myöntämiselle olisi, että työntekijän oleskeluluvan myöntämättä jättäminen Suomesta haettuna olisi ulkomaalaisen tai työnantajan kannalta perusteetonta. Perusteetonta työntekijän oleskeluluvan myöntämättä jättäminen olisi esimerkiksi silloin, kun työsopimus olisi solmittu ja kyse olisi alasta tai tehtävistä, joiden osalta palvelukseen ottamiseen liittyy soveltuvuusarviointia tai muuta sellaista työnhakijan ja työnantajapuolen henkilökohtaista kanssakäymistä, joka on tarkoituksenmukaisimmin järjestettävissä Suomessa. Tällöin ei olisi syytä edellyttää, että ulkomaalainen poistuisi maasta hakemaan työntekijän oleskelulupaa ulkomailta käsin. Elinkeinonharjoittajan oleskeluluvan osalta perusteetonta luvan myöntämättä jättäminen olisi esimerkiksi silloin, kun elinkeinotoiminnan valmistelut ovat edenneet pitkälle esimerkiksi rahoitusjärjestelyjen, sopimusten ja mahdollisten viranomaispäätösten osalta. Kohtaa ei tulisi soveltaa tilanteeseen, jossa hakija on viisumia hakiessaan ilmoittanut maahantulonsa syyksi muun kuin sen, jonka perusteella hän oleskelulupaa hakee. Hallittu maahanmuutto edellyttää, että oleskelulupaa kuitenkin pääsääntäisesti haetaan ulkomailta käsin ja että matkailutarkoituksessa ei voi tulla maahan työtä hakemaan.

The local employment office would investigate whether appointment to the type of work in question normally or essentially requires a personal interview or other test of suitability. However, it would be the Directorate of Immigration that would examine the reasons originally given by the applicant when requesting a visa for Finland, and consider whether these reasons are consistent with the subsequent jobseeking and application for a worker's residence permit.

One possible disparity arises now between applicants from visa-exempt countries and applicants from elsewhere. As the government bill indicates, the provision applies to applicants in both categories. This is generous: on a strict reading of visa-exemption arrangements, the exception would not apply to visa-exempt foreigners at all. However, as a visa-exempt foreigner has not been asked to give reasons for coming to Finland, there can be no mismatch between "what was said when requesting a visa" and what was later said when requesting a residence permit.

If the applicant in this case initially requested a visitor's visa (with no mention of the intention to attend a job interview etc.) and only subsequently met an employer and secured a job offer, then the exception to the main rule detailed in point 3 does not apply. Instead, the main rule applies and the first residence permit must be requested from abroad.

The preparations for the new Aliens Act included a thorough debate on whether Finland should issue "jobseeker visas". This debate made sense precisely because the main rule is that Finland does not admit foreigners from outside of the European Economic Area for the purpose of seeking work in Finland. This in turn is a matter of public policy. If you don't like it, then start a campaign and remember to vote for the other lot next time.

Without seeing the decision and knowing the background to this case in much greater detail, there is no way to tell whether the decision was lawful.

daryl

[Hank W.]

But Daryl, you yourself pointed out there is no such visa to be applied for, it is for visiting 'as a tourist'. Same thing IIRC with people coming to sit for entrance tests. And as for visa-free countries travellers - how is one expected to find a job if one doesn't go for an interview?

What comes to the "jobseeker visa" I think the EU bigwigs are currently wrangling over it, especially re. Africans in the Canary Islands, it needs to be EU-wide probably because of the Schengen.

And while yes, the main principle is that the prospective immigrant must apply from home, that doesn't still excuse the UVI & police masturbating 4 months over the issue. The police should have told: "no - go home" and/or the UVI boomeranged the paper on sight "no-go home". It would maybe been a bit of a slap into the face, but I don't think even this kind of treatment is "legal" it doesn't make it "right". If anything it gives out any other message than that of total incompetence. If the decision is based on which mail pouch the application is in, there should be someone sorting the mail then, immediately, as the system is clogged. Now they could have "solved a case" by rubberstamping the application but they confirmed they'll have the same application "applied right" on their desk in a few months. Double work, and double waiting times.

[sinikettu]

This thread has generated a lot of excited responses and invective for no particularly good reason IMO.


If the applicant in this case initially requested a visitor's visa (with no mention of the intention to attend a job interview etc.) and only subsequently met an employer and secured a job offer, then the exception to the main rule detailed in point 3 does not apply. Instead, the main rule applies and the first residence permit must be requested from abroad.

The preparations for the new Aliens Act included a thorough debate on whether Finland should issue "jobseeker visas". This debate made sense precisely because the main rule is that Finland does not admit foreigners from outside of the European Economic Area for the purpose of seeking work in Finland.

This in turn is a matter of public policy.

If you don't like it, then start a campaign and remember to vote for the other lot next time.

daryl

Clear and precise as expected from Daryl.

Unfortunately Foreigners dont get a vote in Finland...and the majority of Finns....would probably vote for "no change" and some would go as far as to vote to.."keep or even kick the foreigners out"

[Hank W.]

...and the majority of Finns....would probably vote for "no change" and some would go as far as to vote to.."keep or even kick the foreigners out"

I'd vote for the "fix the system to something efficient so the gits stop complaining" - party. Clear rules, and no ambiguity.

Now *all* Finnish bureaucracy used to be byzantine back in the "good old days", these days the VERO is a public service award winner, even KELA offices are helpful, even bureaucratic like the silly unemployment fill-in-boxes kneel-up silliness, and the MOL is efficient (not that they'd find you work, but thats not their problem, they give you the tools to find work).

Theres still work to be done in kicking the bureaucrats in the butt to get "stuff done". But I am sure that Finland still is pretty high on the efficiency scale, look for example the unified application system to secondary education? OK, requires a bit of intelligence (that you probably need to have if you intend to study) to fill in the form, but that system has been established since the late 1980's already.

So the "proud Finn" in me cringes when one ears of people put through some kafkaesque mill. I've been put through some asininity a few times and that left me a bad taste . Mine was a case of one hand not knowing what the other does - MOL & KELA both applying their own interpretation of the rules - so I kind of see here a similar situation.

They are probably making political cowtrading as we speak, but to get a clear immigration policy would benefit everybody.

[Mark I.]

There is no sound common sense in Finnish bureaucracy: The starting point and the main principal is to prevent all kinds of imagionable misuses by a customer, and no attention what so ever is directed to a customer's situation. In other words, in many cases a customer ends up with cafka -like situations, not to mention about fair and just. This part of Finnish administration culture is an import straight from from Char's Russia. It's kind of a principal that if some practise prevents one case of misuse, it excuses 1000 cases of unjust decisions.

Knowing close to nothing about residence permit procedures, it's simply insane if *four months* after leaving an application one receives an ultimatum that application was left in false circumstances, resulting exilation from Finland. How difficult would it be to check that right away when that application is left to authorities?

[daryl]

It seems that we are now broadly back on track in this thread.

As a matter of public policy, Finland does not admit foreign jobseekers from outside of the EEA. Contrary to Hank's initial observation, this does not make it impossible to get the job offer that is required for the worker's residence permit procedure. Plenty of migrant workers do secure promises of employment before arriving in Finland, and if the employer insists on a face to face interview in Finland, then a procedure exists to accommodate this.

We then come back to the question of bureaucracy:

And while yes, the main principle is that the prospective immigrant must apply from home, that doesn't still excuse the UVI & police masturbating 4 months over the issue. The police should have told: "no - go home" and/or the UVI boomeranged the paper on sight "no-go home". It would maybe been a bit of a slap into the face, but I don't think even this kind of treatment is "legal" it doesn't make it "right". If anything it gives out any other message than that of total incompetence. If the decision is based on which mail pouch the application is in, there should be someone sorting the mail then, immediately, as the system is clogged. Now they could have "solved a case" by rubberstamping the application but they confirmed they'll have the same application "applied right" on their desk in a few months. Double work, and double waiting times.

When Matti Saarelainen was appointed Director General of UVI some years back he began his term of office by inviting "interest groups" to come and see him informally. I took up this invitation and, in the course of our cosy chat, suggested that some "pre-screening" of applications would be a good thing. A couple of years later I heard that UVI had introduced a "selvät myönteiset" procedure for approving certain citizenship applications.

It is relatively easy to accelerate the approval of applications that are clearly well founded. In such cases the authority assumes the risk of error and there is normally no need to provide justifications for the decision or to respond to an appeal. The "risk of error" is more of a political risk - for example if the foreigner turns out to be seriously undesirable and the authority could have and should have realised this. Such cases have arisen in the past.

On the other hand, problems arise in trying to speed up refusals precisely because justifications must be given and the authority must be in a position to respond to any appeal. This means that the case must be adequately investigated and the decision must be taken by an expert.

In the present case it appears that the Espoo police took about one month to notify the applicant of the decision. There are no indications that the applicant was hard to find and formal notification is a simple administrative procedure. September is no longer the holiday season, so it is hard to find any excuse for taking more than a few days to notify the applicant. If we contrast this with the haste in which expulsion decisions are often requested by local police authorities even before the grounds for expulsion have become legally final, then we may justifiably ask whether local resource allocation is intelligent.

Hank is on the side of the angels in calling for "clear rules and no ambiguity". This was precisely the line taken by another former DG of UVI, Mielikki Tenhunen. As a lawyer, she very quickly realised that the margin of executive discretion in Finland's immigration system was much too broad. The process of narrowing that margin has now continued for more than a decade, and has very largely re-established the rule of law and the responsibility of Parliament in this branch of national administration. On the other hand, I cannot see how the rules governing the present case could be made any clearer. Instead, I think the point is that these rules are not made clear to applicants, and especially to visa applicants abroad.

There is no sound common sense in Finnish bureaucracy: The starting point and the main principle is to prevent all kinds of imaginable misuses by a customer, and no attention whatsoever is directed to a customer's situation. In other words, in many cases a customer ends up in a kafkaesque situation, not to mention fairness and justice. This part of the Finnish administrative culture is an import straight from Czarist Russia. It's kind of principle that if some practice prevents one case of misuse, then it excuses 1,000 cases of unjust decisions.

As a matter of history I'm not sure whether to blame the Czars or Kustaa Vaasa for the view that members of the public are "subjects to be ruled" rather than "clients to be served". However, I had this discussion nearly 20 years ago with yet another former DG of UVI, Risto Veijalainen. At that time it was the custom for local police stations to retain an applicant's passport, but to provide no document specifying that the passport had been retained. Veijalainen conceded that this caused problems for applicants, but he argued that the suggested document "might be misused". Now as a matter of administrative law it has always been possible to get a certificate of processing from a public authority, and as we all know, a formal procedure was soon introduced to provide a "receipt for the passport". However, the underlying attitude that the suffering of the majority is justified in order to prevent possible abuse by a minority remains a very significant issue, and not just in this branch of public administration.

Knowing close to nothing about residence permit procedures, it's simply insane if *four months* after leaving an application one receives an ultimatum that the application was left in false circumstances, resulting expulsion from Finland. How difficult would it be to check that right away when that application is left to authorities?

This would amount to a summary refusal of the application. It should then consist of a written decision specifying the reasons for refusal and including appeal instructions. This would involve examining the merits of the application.

In many cases junior officials actually attempt to issue summary refusals at the point of service, although they generally do not understand that this is what they are doing. Instead they generally claim to be giving the applicant "advice" at this stage. This "resistance" melts away when the applicant insists on filing the application and on receiving a proper response.

In the present case, however, the junior official would not even be in a position to decide whether the application had merit.

I think it is slightly misleading to say that the application was incorrectly lodged. Such applications can be approved under certain conditions. However, the need for expert advice is obvious, as is the greater need for applicants to have some basic knowledge of the migrant worker system before leaving their countries of origin.

daryl

[Hank W.]

So in other words its a 50/60 chance whether the point 3 applies or not, and as it takes 4 moths to get "no" the applicant should just to be safe bugger back home and apply from there as his case is otherwise pretty clear.

Howcome Daryl you all of a sudden change your stand, as the last time I was saying for the person who had bought his ticket and applied abroad to wait for the application to come, and save his trouble and energy? Anyhow its a waste of time for adincluj to complain, but they could have told him immediately to go back home to apply. *What* exactly makes it take 3 months, if the MOL gives the labour opinion in 2 days - is it not a rubber stamp decision? The ambiguity of point 3 is what is the problem here - how the heck is anyone supposed to be able to assess if they're valid for "certain conditions" or not? Except waiting for 3 months for a "no", then going home, and waiting another 3 months for a "yes" - *that* is totally idiotic, a waste of money and resources. And then they complain about not having resources.

Työvoimatoimistolle kuuluu työntekoa ja toimeentuloa koskeva harkinta. Työvoimatoimisto tekee joko myönteisen tai kielteisen osapäätöksen, jonka se toimittaa Ulkomaalaisvirastolle.

Ulkomaalaisvirasto tutkii sen jälkeen, täyttyykö hakijan muut edellytykset Suomessa oleskelulle. Jos työvoimatoimiston osapäätös on myönteinen, eikä hakijan oleskelulle ole yleisiä maahantulon esteitä, Ulkomaalaisvirasto myöntää hakijalle oleskeluluvan

Where does it say "wrongly applied" in here? It says myöntää, not saattaa myöntää, voi myöntää, myöntää jos siltä tuntuu...

It seems that you try to bring anything into the country, be it cars or people, you face some Czaristic Bureaucracy - the only difference being, at the time of the Czar, you were supposed to pay a little extra, which explains why nobody volunteers the information. These days the person getting the baksiish is called a lawyer. A totally useless profession if there was clear and consistent procedural models, and not 50-60 lottery.

The process *should* be straighforward IMNSHO they should make a *clear* procedure - as in the employer and the person apply together a "job interview visa" which entitles the applicant to apply for the residence then in Finland. Or something like that. Something without this kind of asinine "wait three months - no, go home wait three months - yes" that is ihmisten pompottamista if anything. And that results in people complaining and I hate to read people complaining.

[daryl]

So in other words its a 50/60 chance whether the point 3 applies or not, and as it takes 4 moths to get "no" the applicant should just to be safe bugger back home and apply from there as his case is otherwise pretty clear.

This is not really a matter of chance. The main rule is clear and the special conditions for making exceptions are also clear. The specific wording of the government bill implies a generous interpretation in favour of foreigners who come to Finland under visa exemption arrangements. In other cases it is important that the intention to agree on a contract of employment was declared in advance.

Howcome Daryl you all of a sudden change your stand, as the last time I was saying for the person who had bought his ticket and applied abroad to wait for the application to come, and save his trouble and energy?

IIRC, that case involved the spouse of an EU citizen arriving in Finland in the company of that EU citizen. It was also a case in which an application for a residence permit (not a visa) had indeed already been filed abroad and the applicant's intentions had already been declared abroad. For both of these reasons, there is no comparison between these cases.

Anyhow its a waste of time for adincluj to complain, but they could have told him immediately to go back home to apply.

I really did try to explain that there is no difference between "telling the applicant" and "rejecting the application". This would require a written administrative decision including a statement of the relevant facts and of the applicable provisions. It is also a decision of the authority that is open to appeal.

At most, all that is possible is to advise the applicant that the application must satisfy certain conditions, and that there is little point in submitting the application if these conditions have not been met. It must be stressed that the final choice of whether or not to submit the application remains the applicant's.

Local police stations have been in some hot water regarding overzealous "advice" of this kind, specifically because it often takes the form: "You can't apply for that." Advice of this kind is simply illegal. The client is always entitled to submit a claim to the authority, even if that claim has no hope of success. In some cases the opinion that a claim has no success prospects has turned out to be incorrect. In one or two cases that I have argued, this fact was only verified via an appeal procedure.

In the concrete situation of a client with a duly completed application form the safest, but not necessarily the most helpful thing for the official to do is to forward the application for processing. In this case there was obviously also a further problem because the English language used was the native language of neither the applicant nor the official. Advising a client under these circumstances is a minefield.

Although the Administration Act requires public authorities to respond to enquiries about how to initiate a matter, this duty to give advice does not extend to taking on the role of a formal counsellor, even if the junior staff (who are often hired largely for their language skills or are otherwise unfamiliar with the details of immigration law) are capable of giving the client support of this kind.

*What* exactly makes it take 3 months, if the MOL gives the labour opinion in 2 days - is it not a rubber stamp decision? The ambiguity of point 3 is what is the problem here - how the heck is anyone supposed to be able to assess if they're valid for "certain conditions" or not? Except waiting for 3 months for a "no", then going home, and waiting another 3 months for a "yes" - *that* is totally idiotic, a waste of money and resources. And then they complain about not having resources.

There was no way to process this application as a "clearly positive" matter in which summary approval can be granted. An application of this kind from a former Finnish citizen could be processed in this way, but the present case could not. This means that the application must join the queue of "relatively simple matters" awaiting full consideration and a formal refusal. At least it did not have to wait until applications for asylum had been cleared.

Työvoimatoimistolle kuuluu työntekoa ja toimeentuloa koskeva harkinta. Työvoimatoimisto tekee joko myönteisen tai kielteisen osapäätöksen, jonka se toimittaa Ulkomaalaisvirastolle.

Ulkomaalaisvirasto tutkii sen jälkeen, täyttyykö hakijan muut edellytykset Suomessa oleskelulle. Jos työvoimatoimiston osapäätös on myönteinen, eikä hakijan oleskelulle ole yleisiä maahantulon esteitä, Ulkomaalaisvirasto myöntää hakijalle oleskeluluvan

Where does it say "wrongly applied" in here? It says myöntää, not saattaa myöntää, voi myöntää, myöntää jos siltä tuntuu...

Legally speaking, this application probably failed because one of the "other conditions" [examined by UVI] was not met. In other words, there was a "general impediment to arrival". I can't be sure of this without seeing the case documents, but this is my best guess.

The "other condition" in question is that the application was filed only after arrival in Finland and that the case does not warrant any of the specific dispensations listed in paragraph 1 of section 49 of the Aliens Act.

The process *should* be straighforward IMNSHO they should make a *clear* procedure - as in the employer and the person apply together a "job interview visa" which entitles the applicant to apply for the residence then in Finland. Or something like that. Something without this kind of asinine "wait three months - no, go home wait three months - yes" that is ihmisten pompottamista if anything. And that results in people complaining and I hate to read people complaining.

The clear procedure to which you refer already exists and the "job interview visa" can indeed be issued.

Rejected applications are inevitable in any meaningful application procedure. Ideally, of course, nobody will ever lodge an application leading to rejection because everybody (or her adviser) will understand the system so well that they can predict the outcome.

An application that has been filed, on the other hand, is entitled to proper consideration. This takes time. Obviously procedures at UVI are too slow. Everybody knows this. However, any acceleration of the process should not be at the expense of the rights of applicants. It does not serve the rights of applicants to issue decisions that have not been properly researched or adequately analysed, and that are accordingly either overturned on appeal (if they are rejections) or frustrate the will of Parliament (if they are unjustified approvals).

I return to the point that (if I have anaysed this case correctly) this applicant was inadequately advised about the Finnish immigration system at the point of original departure from his country of origin. He could also have saved time by securing informed advice after he got his job offer. The counter at Espoo police station is probably not the right place to get this advice, as this service point is evidently under-resourced for this purpose.

daryl

[odon]

sorry !! i do not agree with you daryl

"Legally speaking, this application probably failed because one of the "other conditions" [examined by UVI] was not met. In other words, there was a "general impediment to arrival". I can't be sure of this without seeing the case documents, but this is my best guess. "

i have from my experience seen the same story as adincluj

the only difference being i was a student first and then called to work, after waiting 3 months they told me to go and file in my country!!

i appealed and they said it was unjustified, !"#¤%....the laws are one thing and each case is based on the person reading the law, including at the appeal stage, i have also had run in's with the UVI and police, i will say not even the person who made the law can effectively read it

i had after i won the case, had a formal apology by the then head of the uvi send to me , my lawyer said the ball is in your court, because i also filled that this caused me to cut short my holiday and also extra expenses,and mental headaches at the time of filling i was thinking of taking it up...more higher but i lost steam after the wait of 8 months.

i say, each case is worth fighting upto the last point........