Login / Join
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 3153
- 2 Comments
What are they smoking in Compliance in Melbourne?
Compliance in Melbourne are in the grips of a craze concerning Migration Agents and protection visas. Today a colleague was told that if they lodged an application for a protection visa on behalf of their client that they would "tarnish" their reputation as an RMA.
Last week a colleague was the subject of an allegation from a compliance officer to the effect that he had encouraged a client to make false statements in an application for a protection visa. That allegation arose in the course of a conversation where my colleague complained that compliance was intimidating my client during the course of the BVE interview.
Perhaps it was just a bit of tit for tat....OR...perhaps Compliance in Melbourne is in the grips of some craze about lawful permissible applications and the Code of Conduct.
It may be time to remind myself and my colleagues that where an application is, in the opinion of the RMA vexatious or grossly unfounded ( for example, an application that has no hope of success) then the Code of Conduct at paragraph 2.17 of the Code of Conduct is enlivened.
Given that the Code requires an RMA to act in accordance with the law and the legitimate interests of the client...how does an RMA do that if the client wants to lodge an application for a PV and that application has no prospects of success?
The simple answer is to comply with the Code of Conduct and to give a client a frank advice in writing to the effect that the application they want to lodge has no reasonable prospects of success and will only delay their departure and possibly irritate their case officer in compliance.
If the client receives that advice in writing and then directs the RMA to file the application, then, subject to full satisfaction of paragraph 2.17(b) and (c) of the Code, the RMA will have a complete defence to the slings and arrows and the threats of dire consequences currently spewing out of Melbourne Compliance.
If it assists you, I have prepared a paragraph 2.17(b) and (c) notice which you free are to use at any time that it suits you. I recommend it be attached at the back of the form 956 when you lodge the application.
Don't let Compliance intimidate or threaten your clients! Don't let them threaten or try to intimidate you.
Your duty is clear under paragraph 2.1 of the Code of Conduct and your sword and shield is the procedure incorporated into paragraph 2.17 of the Code of Conduct.
Let me know if this intimidation continues in any compliance office in any State.
Comments
-
Friday, 01 July 2016
I got feedback from the complaint from DIBP following the lodgment of a complaint with global feedback and I also cc'd the case officer into the complaint.
The allegations of a culture of abuse and intimidation were all denied.
Apparently all they were doing is their job.
I think what we have here is a communication problem.
If a client comes out of an interview with compliance in Melbourne and they feel that they have been threatened, abused and or intimidated then clearly, compliance has a communication problem.
It was interesting to note that the individual officer that was complained about is no longer handling this client.
We lodged the PV application on 17 June and still do not have an acknowledgement, that in turn creates a bottleneck at compliance. The delay in finalising threshold receipt of an application is a DIBP problem and it makes no sense at all that compliance would in effect monster the client and continue to press the client to depart because another unit has not done its job.
Immigration blog
I got feedback from the complaint from DIBP following the lodgment of a complaint with global feedback and i also cc'd the case officer into the complaint.
The allegations of a culture of abuse and intimidation were all denied.
Apparently all they were doing is their job.
I think what we have here is a communication problem.
If a client comes out of an interview with complinace in Melbourne and they feel that they have been threatened, abused and or intimidated then clearly, compliance has a communication problem.
It was interesting to note that the individual officer that was complained about is no longer handling this client.
We lodged the PV application on 17 June and still do not have an acknowledgement, that in turn creates a bottleneck at compliance. The delay in finalising threshold receipt of an application is a DIBP problem and it makes no sense at all that compliance would in effect monster the client and continue to press the client to depart because another unit has not done its job.