# Spouse Visa Payslip Error - Paragraph 1(n) Appendix FM-SE



## Vallee (Jan 1, 2016)

Hi Joppa & Nyclon

I have a question which hopefully you can shed some light on. I submitted my application aware of this issue but felt that I had it covered, but the more I read, the more I become concerned that the application may be rejected because of it.
My wife is applying under Category B. I worked for my previous employer for 5 of the past 12 months and I have submitted all the necessary evidence, including employer letter, original payslips (plus a letter confirming the dates, gross and net amounts), bank statements, P60 etc. I did not have a contract of employment and this was specified clearly in the letter.

The issue has arisen from a technical error with my payslips, which I have set out below:

My previous employer agreed employment terms verbally and employees salaries are decided by a net weekly figure rather than an annual gross figure. For example, during my employment, I was told I would be paid £450 a week (net), rather than being given an annual gross figure as many employers do. However, the gross annual figure was worked out for the sake of the employment letter requirements. But despite being paid weekly, I only receive one monthly payslip (to save on administration costs).

This actually works much better as you know what you are getting paid every week and there is no fluctuations (albeit small ones) in the figure as is the case with my current job. The gross figure is obviously stated on the payslip and is worked out from the net figure being paid on the payslip. Effectively, my previous employer worked backwards when deciding pay (net to gross) Hopefully you are still following me….

The issue is that each of my payslips states that I am getting paid £1950 (net). However, this figure is clearly not right as I get paid £450 a week. Therefore, in a normal 4 week month I received £1800 deposited into my bank account and in a 5-week month (i.e which occurred twice during the 5 month period) I received £2,250 deposited into my bank account. Therefore, I am either getting paid under the net figure on my payslip (in a 4 week month) or over it (on a 5 week month) depending how many Fridays were in a month (I got paid on Fridays fyi).

I contacted my previous employer and explained the issue. He said the payslips are correct because £450 x 52 (weeks in a year) and divided by 12 (months in a year) = £1950. I understand the logic in this, but I am sure that this is not right. Basically, it seems the accountant has just divided my salary by 12 to get this figure, whereas I was on the understanding that the net figure on a payslip is dictated by what is deposited in your bank account on any given month. The calculation on the actual payslip has not taken into account that there are months where I would be paid 4 times and others where I would be paid 5 times. Hence, no single payslip I have received matches what was deposited into my account. But over the course of my employment I did receive the correct amount as it all evens out over the course of the year (and my employer was actually paying too much tax for the majority of my employment because of this issue).

We were actually on the verge of applying last month when we noticed this issue. It was fortunate I noticed it as I stupidly assumed that this was standard and the figures would match. This was when I looked up paragraph 1 of Appendix FM-SE which states:

" The gross amount of any cash income may be counted where the person’s specified bank statements show the net amount which relates to the gross amount shown on their payslips (or in the relevant specified evidence provided in addition to the specified bank statements in relation to non-employment income). Otherwise, only the net amount shown on the specified bank statements may be counted."

Under this rule, the application would have been rejected as the net deposited amount meant that I fell short of the financial requirement. However, now that I have been paid again, we just creep over the line even when we count only the net deposited amount from my previous employer. I have pointed this issue out both in the Appendix 2 extra information section and also a letter from me where I set out how I meet the financial requirement. I have therefore acknowledged the issue and asked the ECO to apply paragraph 1 when calculating the financial requirement. 

The letter from my employer does not acknowledge that there has been any kind of error, but it does state clearly what my gross annual salary was (£29,865) and that I was paid weekly £450 (net). My employer also provided a letter alongside the original payslips confirming the date of each payslip as well as the gross and net amount (as stated on the payslip). This was to ensure there is no question of their authenticity as I think an ECO might be scratching his head when he first compares them to my bank statements. The payslips are original and generated with the correct intent – they are just erroneous.

Despite thinking I had covered all my bases upon realising this issue, I am starting to think more and more it will be rejected as the rule in paragraph 1 only really envisages a situation where a person is being paid in cash in order to ensure they deposit the full amount – it was not designed for payslip errors I do not believe. However, all the information is available to show that I was paid at least £450 a week (the payments in my bank account are referenced with my employer's name), I have original payslips (albeit erroneous ones) and all the letters that are required. Checks with HMRC should also confirm that everything is legitimate.

I would be interested to know your thoughts on this, in particular:

1. How will the ECO approach the fact that I am paid weekly but receive a monthly payslip? I assumed he would just add the figures up each month (payments have been highlighted without altering documents) but I imagine this is quite unusual for them. Not to mention that the total of each figure does not match the net monthly figure even when they do add them up!

2. Will paragraph 1 be applied in my circumstances? In my opinion, I think it should. A rule should be made with every situation borne in mind and I think falls although my situation was not envisaged by the rule when it was made, it does fall under it by the wording alone. I just have a bad feeling that this situation is so rare that the ECO is tempted to refuse for lack of knowing what to do or simply thinking something is not right.

I have made the application as clear as possible and there is no way the ECO can miss my explanation of the issues. Are there any reasons you think this could rejected for?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

We just don't know what an individual ECO will do, as each application is unique. My gut feeling is you will be fine.


----------



## Vallee (Jan 1, 2016)

Well I got the decision has been made email at 9am this morning. The application was with them for less than 48 hours - not sure what to think about that.

Optimistic side of me is thinking that it would not be that straight forward to and quick to reject the application and would have taken longer. The application is probably one of the biggest they will have seen (8lb lever arch folder) but it was extremely well organised to make the ECO's life easier. I placed a sticker on the each of the pastic wallets containing my bank statements setting out the dates of each deposit and a cumulative total so that by the final statement they can see that I have exceeded the financial requirement.

But the other side of me can also imagine they looked at the payslips and bank statements and just immediately thought this was not right and rejected. 

I am guessing it will be Monday before my wife and I find out! Logic tells me that a quick decision is either an approval or a rejection based off something so obvious it needed no further review (missing document etc).


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

8 lbs is well over the top - nobody requires that much supporting documents. Contrary to what some people think, more isn't better and there is a danger of vital documents and evidence being overlooked among piles of of irrelevancies and ephemerals. The best way to ensure success is first to meet the requirements in full, and then to organise supporting evidence in a most efficient and logical way - a well streamlined application in fact. 
You just have to wait until you get your passport back, and if it is a success, I would think that is despite your masses of documents and not because of them.


----------



## Vallee (Jan 1, 2016)

Hi Joppa. I take your point on board but I am confident that the objectively assessed parts of the application were streamlined. It was the subjective relationship section that was bulked out a lot but this was at the back of the application and separate so unlikely confuse the ECO. A lot of time was spent on the actual organisation and presentation of the documents which I think is important in any line of work so hopefully this has paid off. I went through the application as if I was the ECO before sending it.

I know it's impossible to say with certainty, but do you think that with such a large application and the fact there were no missing documents (I am certain) and the fact that (believe it or not) it was organised and easy to follow, that this quick turnaround is more likely to be an approval than rejection? 

I would be interested to hear more about the internal processes at Sheffield if you can provide any information Joppa? Is it true that every refusal needs to be reviewed by an Entry Clearance Manager? So that statistically, unless you have made a silly error, a refusal should take longer than a quick approval (not to mention the time it takes to type a rejection letter). This is my logic but I have no idea and I am just trying to keep feet on the ground whilst remaining optimistic I guess.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

I have no insight into what goes on at Sheffield. You can't conclude from a quick decision if it's a success or failure. I have seen both. I don't think every refusal is examined by their line manager, but ECO has to pen a rejection letter setting out grounds for refusal, quoting relevant rules and guidance. But there is also a large element of individual judgment, in the phrase 'on the balance of probabilities' and 'in my judgment', which is permitted under immigration rules. So you should wait till you get your passport back before jumping to conclusion.


----------



## Vallee (Jan 1, 2016)

Hi Joppa, please can you let me know your thoughts on paragraph 1 of Appendux FM-SE:

" The gross amount of any cash income may be counted where the person’s specified bank statements show the net amount which relates to the gross amount shown on their payslips (or in the relevant specified evidence provided in addition to the specified bank statements in relation to non-employment income). Otherwise, only the net amount shown on the specified bank statements may be counted."

I am seeing posts on forums as recent as May 2015 claiming that their application was rejected because the payslips did not match the bank statements, some by as little as 20 pence. Not a single person has referenced this rule and many commentits are justifying the refusal on the grounds that the bank statements and payslips must match exactly. If this is the case then my wife's application is certainly rejected.

However, I have also clearly read the rules and paragraph 1 clearly contradicts that Unless this is a new addition to the rules, or these people were scraping the financial requirement so closely that paragraph 1 took them below the threshold, this is cause for concern. Is this simply a case of people not really knowing the actual reason for refusal? Yes it is attributable to the payslips and bank statements not matching, but it is the failure to meet the £18,600 level even when paragraph 1 is applied that is the more accurate reason I.e it is technically possible for payslip and bank statements nit to match and still be approved, right?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

All paragraph 1 says is that if the net amount deposited into your bank account and shown in your statement agrees with your payslip, then the gross equivalent will count towards meeting the financial requirement. But if there is no corresponding corroboration through the payslip, only the net figure deposited will count.


----------



## Vallee (Jan 1, 2016)

Exactly what I think also. So on that basis, the people I see posting that they are rejected for non matching documents are either (1) wrong and in fact they are refused for their failure to meet the financial requirement as a result of only being able to apply the net figure (I.e they must have been scraping it gross) or (2) ECOs are getting it wrong 

I hope it's the first - but I am amazed how I am not seeing a single person refer to this rule. Everyone seems convinced that non matching documents will be the reason for refusal by itself. But that's not what the rules seem to suggest


----------



## Vallee (Jan 1, 2016)

Vallee said:


> Exactly what I think also. So on that basis, the people I see posting that they are rejected for non matching documents are either (1) wrong and in fact they are refused for their failure to meet the financial requirement as a result of only being able to apply the net figure (I.e they must have been scraping it gross) or (2) ECOs are getting it wrong
> 
> I hope it's the first - but I am amazed how I am not seeing a single person refer to this rule. Everyone seems convinced that non matching documents will be the reason for refusal by itself. But that's not what the rules seem to suggest


After much research it seems that the payslips may be regarded as false documents under the general provisions (suitability for entry clearance). 

Joppa, please can you confirm if an ECO has discretion on this, for example, where the incorrect information is a result of a mistake rather than deception? Like I said. I was aware of this issue and as the payslips cannot be reissued from so long ago, I simply pointed it out (referring to oars 1) and accepted I would be penalised by the ECO (by only applying the net deposited amount), rather than flat out rejection. What is the meaning of false under the rules?

I am expecting that this will be a rejection now as I cannot see paragraph 1 being applied in these circumstances anywhere. However, the application was still decided remarkably quick despite knowing that any accusation of falsity requires approval from an Entry Clearance Manager and completion of a Document Verification Report.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

False can be either fraudulent, such as falsified or faked (i.e. dishonesty) or just in error. If the document is in error, i.e. wrongly drawn up, through no fault of your own, you can still be refused visa if you don't meet the requirements, where figures need to match. In that case an appeal I'd have thought has a good chance of success, if you can get a proper, amended document by your employer, for example, reflecting the situation as it was on the date of original application. If it was the former - dishonesty, you stand no chance and you may even be slapped with 10-year ban from entering UK.

May I also suggest you don't spam the board with your argument on any related threads, but just confine your debate on your current one which you have started.


----------



## Vallee (Jan 1, 2016)

Apologies but my intention is not to spam. My intention is to assist people like me who come onto these forums to look for opinions and examples which they can relate to.

My argument on these threads was to challenge those who I felt were wrongly arguing that payslips and bank statements must match exactly. And I was correct - my wife's passport arrived just over an hour ago with her visa inside it. Although it is preferable that payslips and bank statements match, there are now a number of threads where people aren't being completely misinformed as a result of my posts. I seem to be the first person to challenge this issue out of all the threads I searched so there is a better spread of opinion available now I believe.

I was paid weekly, but received only a monthly payslip. Due to the error described in my original post 5 out of the 7 payslips states a net figure £150 more than what was received in my bank account during each of those months. The other two payslips show £300 less than what was paid into my bank accountant during each of those months. As stated before, these were genuine accounting errors and you will understand why from my original post. But these are huge differences compared to others who have been rejected. 

For those I see being rejected for as little as 20 pence difference, I stand by my argument that these type of decisions are wrong and show no common sense. However, in my opinion the key difference in my wife's application is that I noticed the issue, acknowledged it, drew it to the ECO's attention (in bold red writing) and asked that they only take the net deposited figure into account (rather than the gross figure) pursuant to paragraph 1. I penalised myself and lost £3500 that I could count towards the financial requirement. But they certainly cannot say I have been deceptive or dishonest, but actually rather transparent. And despite the deduction I imposed on myself I met the financial requirement regardless, so quite rightly the application should be approved. That's not to say I wasn't worried, but who isn't when submitting these applications?

For those interested, my employer did not acknowledge the payslip error, but did provide a letter confirming the gross and net amounts despite them being original. This was in addition to the required employer letter and original bank statements showing deposits. P60 was thrown in also. Previous issues regarding payslip errors usually result in an accusation that they are false. But It seems that if backed up with enough evidence, this can be overcome as the ECO would be inferring that all these documents are also false which is pushing it slightly I think.

My wife's application was approved the same day it arrived at Sheffield although we did not receive the decision email until the next day. Some other points to note:

1. I have seen many posts saying that submitting these documents in any way other than tied with string complicates things for the ECO as they need to rearrange them. This is not true - my documents were all in plastic wallets inside a binder and used coloured tabs (referencing to a colour coded contents page). This goes against all the advice I have seen but the documents came back looking untouched. This may be because I submitted duplicate "copy" folder to be retained by UKVI (plastic wallets, coloured tabs also included) and potentially saved them the effort of making copies or it could be because it doesn't really matter that much how you provide the documents. 

2. The application as stated above was 8lbs. (16lbs with the copy). But despite what people think, the majority of these documents were relevant and required. The only section that was perhaps a bit overkill was the relationship section but granted this is subjective I wasn't taking any chances. The key is to make sure the documents are organised. It does not matter if it is twice the size as long as it is easy to follow - a 24 hour decision proves this point.

3. I think it also goes without saying that the effort and time you put in does make a difference. The application dotted every "i" and crossed every "t". Every document that was not original was certified by a solicitor, every letter was witnessed by a solicitor. Every factor the ECO takes into account was explained in writing. For example, my wife is exempt from the TB requirement because she now lives in the U.S (but is a citizen of a TB testing country). We did not rely on the ECO to figure this out. We wrote s letter explaining why she is exempt and referred to paragraph A39 of the immigration rules. Do not leave anything to chance.

I think there are many misconceptions out there and hopefully this helps. Just put yourself in the ECO's shoes and you will be fine.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Ok, you had your say, and this thread is now closed.


----------

