ANDREW MILLER
Nov 14th 2008, 1:30 am
#106
Immigration Consultant
Joined: Jun 2007
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,144
Re: ANDREW MILLER
Hi
I have to add something for whats it worth. CIC was in the forefront forming an association of Immigration consultants so that applicants could be secure in the knowledge that if their consultant "screwed up" their could have some recourse. CIC's side of the bargain was that they would not deal with consultants unless they were a member of CSIC (or a member of the bar). It didn't do away with the fly by night "consultants", but lets put some of the burden on the applicants, who didn't bother to check out whether the consultant who they paid to complete their forms and build their story was actually able to practice in Canada as a consultant.
Now CIC has taken the tack that you can pay anyone to complete and submit your application for you, but the only thing that they can't do is represent the client in front of CIC, (appeals, hearings, etc.) So as a consultant, if you don't handle appeals or hearings, why belong to CSIC? Just to pay the fees and attend the required additional training every year? Still have to respond to any complaints founded or not, while the non-member consultants can continue on their way, because no one, especially overseas is going to do a damn thing.
I am not defending Andrew, he is a big boy and look after himself, but CSIC has basically had its fangs pulled by CIC just as the law society wanted since CSIC was formed.
Hope Andrew recovers, and I wish him well in the future.
I have to add something for whats it worth. CIC was in the forefront forming an association of Immigration consultants so that applicants could be secure in the knowledge that if their consultant "screwed up" their could have some recourse. CIC's side of the bargain was that they would not deal with consultants unless they were a member of CSIC (or a member of the bar). It didn't do away with the fly by night "consultants", but lets put some of the burden on the applicants, who didn't bother to check out whether the consultant who they paid to complete their forms and build their story was actually able to practice in Canada as a consultant.
Now CIC has taken the tack that you can pay anyone to complete and submit your application for you, but the only thing that they can't do is represent the client in front of CIC, (appeals, hearings, etc.) So as a consultant, if you don't handle appeals or hearings, why belong to CSIC? Just to pay the fees and attend the required additional training every year? Still have to respond to any complaints founded or not, while the non-member consultants can continue on their way, because no one, especially overseas is going to do a damn thing.
I am not defending Andrew, he is a big boy and look after himself, but CSIC has basically had its fangs pulled by CIC just as the law society wanted since CSIC was formed.
Hope Andrew recovers, and I wish him well in the future.
With regard to whether being a CSIC member is an advantage or an unnecessary restriction, I suppose it depends on what kind of firm you are running and what kind of service you are providing. Perhaps non-membership (meaning reduced overheads) would assist the "quick and dirty" style practice where lowest fees are paramount and they dont want the hassle of having to deal with complaints; but I think most clients will want the protection that using a CSIC member provides. Knowing that they are regulated, have to have complete and up-to-date knowledge of immigration law; have to carry appropriate insurance; have to abide by strict codes of ethics and client confidentiality etc are things that are very important to most people. Immigration is a field where you (as a client) are providing someone you dont really know with extremely confidential information, copies of important documents like birth certificates etc (basically everything needed to steal someone's identity if it got into the wrong hands) and placing huge trust in their ability to guide you successfully through a very important life event. Cost is obviously important but dont think cutting out the overhead of CSIC membership in order to reduce prices fractionally is what people want. So i would personally say that membership provides an important competitive advantage (not a disadvantage) over being an unregistered consultant.
There are parallels with lots of other industries - do you choose to use a removal company who a members of the BAR or not?; a travel agent who is ABTA registered or not?; a financial advisor who is FSA registered or not? In many industries a firm doesnt have to be registered but all consumers know if they use one that isnt and something goes wrong they are stuffed.
By the way, I am not saying everyone should use a consultant to handle their application - there's nothing wrong with doing it yourself - but if you do use one you should ensure they are a CSIC member.
Last edited by Paul Wildy; Nov 14th 2008 at 1:32 am.
Nov 14th 2008, 3:23 am
#107
Immigration Consultant
Joined: Jun 2007
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,144
Re: ANDREW MILLER
With all due respect NSpaul, but you are wrong. Legislation doesn't state this at all. Legislation states as follows -
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc...-ga:l_2-gb:l_4
13.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no person who is not an authorized representative may, for a fee, represent, advise or consult with a person who is the subject of a proceeding or application before the Minister, an officer or the Board.
Unfortunately for CSIC and it's members who would prefer your interpretation the law cannot be interpreted this way.
Person is not the subject of a proceeding or application before the Minister, an officer or the Board until application is submitted, appeal filed, etc..
CIC uses the proper interpretation - impotent CSIC is out of luck, should be dismantled as the standing committee on citizenship and immigration recommended last June in it's report and new regulatory body should be established, this time as government agency.
My 2 cents as objective and disgusted observer of the mayhem and lynching that is happening here. Shame on you people.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc...-ga:l_2-gb:l_4
13.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2), no person who is not an authorized representative may, for a fee, represent, advise or consult with a person who is the subject of a proceeding or application before the Minister, an officer or the Board.
Unfortunately for CSIC and it's members who would prefer your interpretation the law cannot be interpreted this way.
Person is not the subject of a proceeding or application before the Minister, an officer or the Board until application is submitted, appeal filed, etc..
CIC uses the proper interpretation - impotent CSIC is out of luck, should be dismantled as the standing committee on citizenship and immigration recommended last June in it's report and new regulatory body should be established, this time as government agency.
My 2 cents as objective and disgusted observer of the mayhem and lynching that is happening here. Shame on you people.
No, I disagree with your interpretation of the legislation. Someone who is the "subject of a... application before the Minister" is a person making an application - to argue over whether the application has or hasnt been received yet is quite a fine line indeed.
It seems as though you have got a problem with the CSIC of some kind. I dont know why that would be. Perhaps it is not the perfect regulatory body (and give me an example of one that is) but provided that a Consultant is a member of them then clients can at least be ensure that the Consultant has gone through a rigorous process of study, exams, background checks etc and is required to abide by their strict rules of conduct as long as the consultant remains a member.
I really have no idea what your reference to "lynching" is about if it is in reference to one of my own posts? I have not done any lynching - I have simply expressed my support for regulation of consultants by CSIC. If another body replaces them and takes on that role then fine but I do not think practitioners in this industry should be completely unregulated and unaccountable.
Nov 14th 2008, 8:17 am
#108
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 4,483
Re: ANDREW MILLER
CSIC is but one chapter of a long sad story of competing interests and obdurate CIC management. At one time work was well under way to form the "College of Immigration Practitioners" with apparent CIC support. Unfortunately after sincere effort on the part of immigration practitioners and some considerable expenditure too, the CIC abruptly dropped their support for that plan and instead instituted its own, the dreary and ineffective CSIC. To top it off the CIC has also knifed their own creation in the back and hamstrung it to boot.
Nov 15th 2008, 8:26 am
#109
Forum Regular
Joined: Apr 2008
Location: OTTAWA CANADA
Posts: 251
Re: ANDREW MILLER
it is not about what u like or dislike the service u received, its about whether a service has been conducted or not. if it has been conducted, no matter how much u dislike it, u wont get any refund.
i hired a canadian consultant to file a FSW application for me. He informed me it is ok to file without 1 full yr paid work experience but it is clealy against CIC's operation manual.
I cant get my $$ back at all no matter how much i disliked my consulotant!
so, if u have paid someone and he did what he/she is supposed to do, then just dont expect to get ur $$ back no matter how lousy he did.
i hired a canadian consultant to file a FSW application for me. He informed me it is ok to file without 1 full yr paid work experience but it is clealy against CIC's operation manual.
I cant get my $$ back at all no matter how much i disliked my consulotant!
so, if u have paid someone and he did what he/she is supposed to do, then just dont expect to get ur $$ back no matter how lousy he did.
I apologize if you are not happy.
If you don't like or not getting the service that you paid for, you get your money back. This is the Canadian way doing business, plain simple.
For an agent you paid thousands of dollars but won't even answer phone calls or e-mails, and yet, still claims that "other qualified employees" are working in the office?
So I take "A. Miller & Associate, Incorporated" as an corporation was not quite incorporated and now it is incorporated into another name? It doesn't makes any sense at all...
Let me put it in a simple way to explain. You paid $4000 to company A, and now one the primary owner said company A is no longer in business. All cases will be transferred to company B. How could company B legally responsible for clients from company A?
What is going on here?
If you don't like or not getting the service that you paid for, you get your money back. This is the Canadian way doing business, plain simple.
For an agent you paid thousands of dollars but won't even answer phone calls or e-mails, and yet, still claims that "other qualified employees" are working in the office?
So I take "A. Miller & Associate, Incorporated" as an corporation was not quite incorporated and now it is incorporated into another name? It doesn't makes any sense at all...
Let me put it in a simple way to explain. You paid $4000 to company A, and now one the primary owner said company A is no longer in business. All cases will be transferred to company B. How could company B legally responsible for clients from company A?
What is going on here?
Nov 15th 2008, 11:10 am
#110
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 4,483
Re: ANDREW MILLER
If your consultant was a member of CSIC and if work was undertaken that had no prospect of success then a refund should be granted. You can complain to CSIC in that situation.
Nov 15th 2008, 11:21 am
#111
Forum Regular
Joined: Apr 2008
Location: OTTAWA CANADA
Posts: 251
Re: ANDREW MILLER
i dun think i wil ever get a refund but will 100% file a complaint when i get my PR. even a complaint wont cause any damage to this guys cuz the CSIC will probably just fine him for a few hundreds.
theres no enforcement or regulation whatsoever for their members.
theres no enforcement or regulation whatsoever for their members.
Nov 15th 2008, 11:43 am
#112
Account Closed
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 77
Re: ANDREW MILLER
timu12, please stop saying "probably". Read what is the truth...
If my paid representative is doing what you are suggested, I will complain, complain and complain, or even take my case to court til FULL AMOUNT is refunded. If things will take this far to get my money back, I will guarantee full force to have these lairs to face the maximum penalties.
Given up my rights to crooks is not an option.
http://www.csic-scci.ca/content/Enforcement
Counselling misrepresentation
126. Every person who knowingly counsels, induces, aids or abets or attempts to counsel, induce, aid or abet any person to directly or indirectly misrepresent or withhold material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act is guilty of an offence.
Misrepresentation
127. No person shall knowingly
(a) directly or indirectly misrepresent or withhold material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act;
(b) communicate, directly or indirectly, by any means, false or misleading information or declarations with intent to induce or deter immigration to Canada; or
(c) refuse to be sworn or to affirm or declare, as the case may be, or to answer a question put to the person at an examination or at a proceeding held under this Act.
Penalties
128. A person who contravenes a provision of section 126 or 127 is guilty of an offence and liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years, or to both; or
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or to both.
If my paid representative is doing what you are suggested, I will complain, complain and complain, or even take my case to court til FULL AMOUNT is refunded. If things will take this far to get my money back, I will guarantee full force to have these lairs to face the maximum penalties.
Given up my rights to crooks is not an option.
http://www.csic-scci.ca/content/Enforcement
Counselling misrepresentation
126. Every person who knowingly counsels, induces, aids or abets or attempts to counsel, induce, aid or abet any person to directly or indirectly misrepresent or withhold material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act is guilty of an offence.
Misrepresentation
127. No person shall knowingly
(a) directly or indirectly misrepresent or withhold material facts relating to a relevant matter that induces or could induce an error in the administration of this Act;
(b) communicate, directly or indirectly, by any means, false or misleading information or declarations with intent to induce or deter immigration to Canada; or
(c) refuse to be sworn or to affirm or declare, as the case may be, or to answer a question put to the person at an examination or at a proceeding held under this Act.
Penalties
128. A person who contravenes a provision of section 126 or 127 is guilty of an offence and liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years, or to both; or
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years, or to both.
Nov 15th 2008, 12:41 pm
#113
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 4,483
Re: ANDREW MILLER
Timu - CSIC has the authority to force the consultant to refund and can also suspend or cancel their license.
Nov 15th 2008, 12:53 pm
#114
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,053
Re: ANDREW MILLER
Andrew,
Hope you have a speedy recovery and I wish you the very best.
As for some of the bloody thirsty drama queens on here, I would say that maybe the distinct lack of response could be indicative of what's going on for Andrew, and by the virtue nobody else in his office has been in touch, I would say that things could have got very serious indeed.
I would leave you with one thought, would someone who has devoted hours of their time over the years, have a sudden personality change and decided to scam people out of money? I doubt it, especially when they have a professional name to keep up, and a high profile. Andrew has contacted me via phone in the past and refused payment.......are these the actions of a con artist? No.....one would assume not.
For the first time ever I think Rich was right in what he said, earlier in the thread.
All the best
Mrs Miggins x
Hope you have a speedy recovery and I wish you the very best.
As for some of the bloody thirsty drama queens on here, I would say that maybe the distinct lack of response could be indicative of what's going on for Andrew, and by the virtue nobody else in his office has been in touch, I would say that things could have got very serious indeed.
I would leave you with one thought, would someone who has devoted hours of their time over the years, have a sudden personality change and decided to scam people out of money? I doubt it, especially when they have a professional name to keep up, and a high profile. Andrew has contacted me via phone in the past and refused payment.......are these the actions of a con artist? No.....one would assume not.
For the first time ever I think Rich was right in what he said, earlier in the thread.
All the best
Mrs Miggins x
Nov 15th 2008, 1:07 pm
#115
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: South Fredericton NB
Posts: 294
Re: ANDREW MILLER
To the OP and other with issues with Andrew
I very recently received a full refund from a firm of solicitors of $10k, the full amount was not requested by me, but offered once i suggested that the cause of failure in the case was due to their recommendation on choosing a very exotic route rather than a direct simpler route to solve an issue.
I really didn't want to comment on Andrew directly, but if he has only just told you of his difficulties, you really have to give him reasonable time to respond. I would suggest 2 weeks, if its either a demand for refund or status update.
It looks like there are plenty of other advisors on BE who will assist in the mean time, and if the worst is true, there are a lot of you with potential grievances who can all work together if needed to get satisfiaction.
I very recently received a full refund from a firm of solicitors of $10k, the full amount was not requested by me, but offered once i suggested that the cause of failure in the case was due to their recommendation on choosing a very exotic route rather than a direct simpler route to solve an issue.
I really didn't want to comment on Andrew directly, but if he has only just told you of his difficulties, you really have to give him reasonable time to respond. I would suggest 2 weeks, if its either a demand for refund or status update.
It looks like there are plenty of other advisors on BE who will assist in the mean time, and if the worst is true, there are a lot of you with potential grievances who can all work together if needed to get satisfiaction.
Nov 15th 2008, 2:11 pm
#116
Scottish Canuck
Joined: Aug 2006
Location: Auld Scotia > Nova Scotia > Calgary
Posts: 3,703
Re: ANDREW MILLER
One of my BE friends also hired Andrew Miller and had lots of problems with him not replying to her emails. Strangely enough, while she was waiting patiently for him to reply or even acknowledge her polite emails, he would be on BE giving out all kinds of 'free' advice.
This all happened in 2007/early 2008, so it's not only a current problem. He caused her so much stress and frustration that she cut her losses with him (1000s GBP). He was very unprofessional.
One would ask why a professional businessman would ignore his paying clients and give out 'free' advice in forums instead
Perhaps she may come on and add her story to this thread.
This all happened in 2007/early 2008, so it's not only a current problem. He caused her so much stress and frustration that she cut her losses with him (1000s GBP). He was very unprofessional.
One would ask why a professional businessman would ignore his paying clients and give out 'free' advice in forums instead
Perhaps she may come on and add her story to this thread.
Nov 15th 2008, 3:58 pm
#117
Forum Regular
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 103
Re: ANDREW MILLER
I work in Chinese office of A. Miller & Associates and have just spoken with Andrew earlier today. He has been back in hospital here in China for past few days and his recovery is not going as well as we all would wish. His insurance company refuses to pay for emergency evacuation to Canada and it is not helping. He may be out of hospital in a day or so, but he won't be working yet. He has authorized me to reply to some posters in this thread. Please understand that Andrew is the sole decision maker in the firm and no decision will be made about anything until he makes it himself. We all hope he'll be back on his feet and fully functional within a week or two - until then please all take a deep breath and cool down.
I thank to all who wish Andrew a speedy recovery for their continuous support.
Now some replies, not in exact order of posts.
First - I will not reply to trolls who posted here just to add fuel to the fire and stir things up. They know who they are. I will only reply to posts from clients we were able to identify, regardless them being anonymous here.
Please also note that all clients who had to be notified about changes have been notified. Those who need representation have continuance of such and already signed proper Use of Representative forms. Those who are not at any stage requiring new representation will get proper forms in time. Clients who retain our firm for assistance package (formerly called "consulting and review package") didn't require any representation, didn't ask for such and didn't retain us for it - change in who is an authorized representative in our firm doesn't concern them at all.
Yes-can-do - email is not perfect. As Internet is getting crowded more and anti-spam measures are getting tighter more and more emails are getting lost. Just 2 examples of problems we have from time to time:
- the email sent to AOL users, especially with attachments not always gets to the destination, thanks to archaic, not complying with standards AOL email system
- some UK Internet providers use automatic block for at least 72 hours for a domain(s) or bloks of IP addresses where they suspect large number of spam is coming from. As result emails sent to accounts with those providers at the time they automatically blocked for example entire Gmail domain will be lost and have been lost number of times. We have worked with Gmail to solve this problem and after Gmail put some pressure on certain UK ISP's they have adjusted their filters and we have less problems with email sent to UK since early summer.
akitared - You have received your PR visa well before Andrew's suspension started. We are assuming you were simply joking...
AndyBCbound and his wife Tracywall - You decided to play it in public, so let's state some facts. Tracy received email with explanation from Andrew on Nov 12th and exchanged email with him. Regardless this fact she and her husband (AndyBCbound) continue claiming here for few days past Nov 12 that there is no reply to their email, while at the same time demanding refund. We see it as a dirty attempt to put pressure on Andrew in public forum to extort a refund. Andrew worked with Tracy - he assessed their case, suggested the best route to take, assisted with study permit, LMO and WP (as stages of the total strategy), and what remains to be done is final review of PR application forms and supporting documents before submission and submission itself. Seems you have decided that you don't need us anymore but you want refund. In an unfair and dirty way you took your laundry to the public forum, adding a lot of fuel to the fire that you started. Once Andrew is back at his desk and makes his decision you will be notified. Again - you wanted to make it public, you made it public and don't blame me for stating facts.
nuin and gibbos1 - I understand that you've exchanged email with Andrew before he got back to hospital and that there are no outstanding matters.
MikeFromBristol - I see Andrew already fully replied to you earlier and you long time ago decided not to retain us nor the other agency. What's your beef?
dylan97 - sorry, but we can't even guess who you are and if you are our clients or not as you claim
NSpaul - you are wrong. You cannot remove any words out of the context of the rule. Section R13.1(1) clearly states ... proceedings or application before Minister ... and word before is an integral part of the phrase and person who didn't file anything yet, didn't submit an application is not a subject of proceeding or application before Minister...
If one would follow your logic then anyone who completes an application form and puts it in the drawer for later would be already a subject of application before Minister... - it is not what the law states nor intended.
Please don't bombard me in the forum for more answers - we are very busy working and communicating with hundreds of our clients. Emails to firm are being replied to in the order of priority as it is impossible to reply to all the flood at once. Please be patient for a while.
Andre F.
I thank to all who wish Andrew a speedy recovery for their continuous support.
Now some replies, not in exact order of posts.
First - I will not reply to trolls who posted here just to add fuel to the fire and stir things up. They know who they are. I will only reply to posts from clients we were able to identify, regardless them being anonymous here.
Please also note that all clients who had to be notified about changes have been notified. Those who need representation have continuance of such and already signed proper Use of Representative forms. Those who are not at any stage requiring new representation will get proper forms in time. Clients who retain our firm for assistance package (formerly called "consulting and review package") didn't require any representation, didn't ask for such and didn't retain us for it - change in who is an authorized representative in our firm doesn't concern them at all.
Yes-can-do - email is not perfect. As Internet is getting crowded more and anti-spam measures are getting tighter more and more emails are getting lost. Just 2 examples of problems we have from time to time:
- the email sent to AOL users, especially with attachments not always gets to the destination, thanks to archaic, not complying with standards AOL email system
- some UK Internet providers use automatic block for at least 72 hours for a domain(s) or bloks of IP addresses where they suspect large number of spam is coming from. As result emails sent to accounts with those providers at the time they automatically blocked for example entire Gmail domain will be lost and have been lost number of times. We have worked with Gmail to solve this problem and after Gmail put some pressure on certain UK ISP's they have adjusted their filters and we have less problems with email sent to UK since early summer.
akitared - You have received your PR visa well before Andrew's suspension started. We are assuming you were simply joking...
AndyBCbound and his wife Tracywall - You decided to play it in public, so let's state some facts. Tracy received email with explanation from Andrew on Nov 12th and exchanged email with him. Regardless this fact she and her husband (AndyBCbound) continue claiming here for few days past Nov 12 that there is no reply to their email, while at the same time demanding refund. We see it as a dirty attempt to put pressure on Andrew in public forum to extort a refund. Andrew worked with Tracy - he assessed their case, suggested the best route to take, assisted with study permit, LMO and WP (as stages of the total strategy), and what remains to be done is final review of PR application forms and supporting documents before submission and submission itself. Seems you have decided that you don't need us anymore but you want refund. In an unfair and dirty way you took your laundry to the public forum, adding a lot of fuel to the fire that you started. Once Andrew is back at his desk and makes his decision you will be notified. Again - you wanted to make it public, you made it public and don't blame me for stating facts.
nuin and gibbos1 - I understand that you've exchanged email with Andrew before he got back to hospital and that there are no outstanding matters.
MikeFromBristol - I see Andrew already fully replied to you earlier and you long time ago decided not to retain us nor the other agency. What's your beef?
dylan97 - sorry, but we can't even guess who you are and if you are our clients or not as you claim
NSpaul - you are wrong. You cannot remove any words out of the context of the rule. Section R13.1(1) clearly states ... proceedings or application before Minister ... and word before is an integral part of the phrase and person who didn't file anything yet, didn't submit an application is not a subject of proceeding or application before Minister...
If one would follow your logic then anyone who completes an application form and puts it in the drawer for later would be already a subject of application before Minister... - it is not what the law states nor intended.
Please don't bombard me in the forum for more answers - we are very busy working and communicating with hundreds of our clients. Emails to firm are being replied to in the order of priority as it is impossible to reply to all the flood at once. Please be patient for a while.
Andre F.
Last edited by afoks; Nov 15th 2008 at 4:09 pm.
Nov 15th 2008, 4:30 pm
#118
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,053
Re: ANDREW MILLER
You gotta love cyber space!!!!Mrs Miggins x
Nov 15th 2008, 4:39 pm
#119
Account Closed
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 77
Re: ANDREW MILLER
Andre F,
Communication is very important especially in immigration consulting business. Please try to understand if you wouldn't respond to your paid clients, how about the requests and letters from Consulates/High Commissions? Some medical requests MUST BE done within 60 days, we are approaching to the year-end and the long holiday is coming, doctors are leaving town and labs are closing down for the holiday season, almost forgot to mention the post office mailing cut off date is ahead of us.
I'm not your client nor trying to add fuel to YOUR fire, please don't bash me.
Communication is very important especially in immigration consulting business. Please try to understand if you wouldn't respond to your paid clients, how about the requests and letters from Consulates/High Commissions? Some medical requests MUST BE done within 60 days, we are approaching to the year-end and the long holiday is coming, doctors are leaving town and labs are closing down for the holiday season, almost forgot to mention the post office mailing cut off date is ahead of us.
I'm not your client nor trying to add fuel to YOUR fire, please don't bash me.
I work in Chinese office of A. Miller & Associates and have just spoken with Andrew earlier today. He has been back in hospital here in China for past few days and his recovery is not going as well as we all would wish. His insurance company refuses to pay for emergency evacuation to Canada and it is not helping. He may be out of hospital in a day or so, but he won't be working yet. He has authorized me to reply to some posters in this thread. Please understand that Andrew is the sole decision maker in the firm and no decision will be made about anything until he makes it himself. We all hope he'll be back on his feet and fully functional within a week or two - until then please all take a deep breath and cool down.
I thank to all who wish Andrew a speedy recovery for their continuous support.
Now some replies, not in exact order of posts.
First - I will not reply to trolls who posted here just to add fuel to the fire and stir things up. They know who they are. I will only reply to posts from clients we were able to identify, regardless them being anonymous here.
Please also note that all clients who had to be notified about changes have been notified. Those who need representation have continuance of such and already signed proper Use of Representative forms. Those who are not at any stage requiring new representation will get proper forms in time. Clients who retain our firm for assistance package (formerly called "consulting and review package") didn't require any representation, didn't ask for such and didn't retain us for it - change in who is an authorized representative in our firm doesn't concern them at all.
Yes-can-do - email is not perfect. As Internet is getting crowded more and anti-spam measures are getting tighter more and more emails are getting lost. Just 2 examples of problems we have from time to time:
- the email sent to AOL users, especially with attachments not always gets to the destination, thanks to archaic, not complying with standards AOL email system
- some UK Internet providers use automatic block for at least 72 hours for a domain(s) or bloks of IP addresses where they suspect large number of spam is coming from. As result emails sent to accounts with those providers at the time they automatically blocked for example entire Gmail domain will be lost and have been lost number of times. We have worked with Gmail to solve this problem and after Gmail put some pressure on certain UK ISP's they have adjusted their filters and we have less problems with email sent to UK since early summer.
akitared - You have received your PR visa well before Andrew's suspension started. We are assuming you were simply joking...
AndyBCbound and his wife Tracywall - You decided to play it in public, so let's state some facts. Tracy received email with explanation from Andrew on Nov 12th and exchanged email with him. Regardless this fact she and her husband (AndyBCbound) continue claiming here for few days past Nov 12 that there is no reply to their email, while at the same time demanding refund. We see it as a dirty attempt to put pressure on Andrew in public forum to extort a refund. Andrew worked with Tracy - he assessed their case, suggested the best route to take, assisted with study permit, LMO and WP (as stages of the total strategy), and what remains to be done is final review of PR application forms and supporting documents before submission and submission itself. Seems you have decided that you don't need us anymore but you want refund. In an unfair and dirty way you took your laundry to the public forum, adding a lot of fuel to the fire that you started. Once Andrew is back at his desk and makes his decision you will be notified. Again - you wanted to make it public, you made it public and don't blame me for stating facts.
nuin and gibbos1 - I understand that you've exchanged email with Andrew before he got back to hospital and that there are no outstanding matters.
MikeFromBristol - I see Andrew already fully replied to you earlier and you long time ago decided not to retain us nor the other agency. What's your beef?
dylan97 - sorry, but we can't even guess who you are and if you are our clients or not as you claim
NSpaul - you are wrong. You cannot remove any words out of the context of the rule. Section R13.1(1) clearly states ... proceedings or application before Minister ... and word before is an integral part of the phrase and person who didn't file anything yet, didn't submit an application is not a subject of proceeding or application before Minister...
If one would follow your logic then anyone who completes an application form and puts it in the drawer for later would be already a subject of application before Minister... - it is not what the law states nor intended.
Please don't bombard me in the forum for more answers - we are very busy working and communicating with hundreds of our clients. Emails to firm are being replied to in the order of priority as it is impossible to reply to all the flood at once. Please be patient for a while.
Andre F.
I thank to all who wish Andrew a speedy recovery for their continuous support.
Now some replies, not in exact order of posts.
First - I will not reply to trolls who posted here just to add fuel to the fire and stir things up. They know who they are. I will only reply to posts from clients we were able to identify, regardless them being anonymous here.
Please also note that all clients who had to be notified about changes have been notified. Those who need representation have continuance of such and already signed proper Use of Representative forms. Those who are not at any stage requiring new representation will get proper forms in time. Clients who retain our firm for assistance package (formerly called "consulting and review package") didn't require any representation, didn't ask for such and didn't retain us for it - change in who is an authorized representative in our firm doesn't concern them at all.
Yes-can-do - email is not perfect. As Internet is getting crowded more and anti-spam measures are getting tighter more and more emails are getting lost. Just 2 examples of problems we have from time to time:
- the email sent to AOL users, especially with attachments not always gets to the destination, thanks to archaic, not complying with standards AOL email system
- some UK Internet providers use automatic block for at least 72 hours for a domain(s) or bloks of IP addresses where they suspect large number of spam is coming from. As result emails sent to accounts with those providers at the time they automatically blocked for example entire Gmail domain will be lost and have been lost number of times. We have worked with Gmail to solve this problem and after Gmail put some pressure on certain UK ISP's they have adjusted their filters and we have less problems with email sent to UK since early summer.
akitared - You have received your PR visa well before Andrew's suspension started. We are assuming you were simply joking...
AndyBCbound and his wife Tracywall - You decided to play it in public, so let's state some facts. Tracy received email with explanation from Andrew on Nov 12th and exchanged email with him. Regardless this fact she and her husband (AndyBCbound) continue claiming here for few days past Nov 12 that there is no reply to their email, while at the same time demanding refund. We see it as a dirty attempt to put pressure on Andrew in public forum to extort a refund. Andrew worked with Tracy - he assessed their case, suggested the best route to take, assisted with study permit, LMO and WP (as stages of the total strategy), and what remains to be done is final review of PR application forms and supporting documents before submission and submission itself. Seems you have decided that you don't need us anymore but you want refund. In an unfair and dirty way you took your laundry to the public forum, adding a lot of fuel to the fire that you started. Once Andrew is back at his desk and makes his decision you will be notified. Again - you wanted to make it public, you made it public and don't blame me for stating facts.
nuin and gibbos1 - I understand that you've exchanged email with Andrew before he got back to hospital and that there are no outstanding matters.
MikeFromBristol - I see Andrew already fully replied to you earlier and you long time ago decided not to retain us nor the other agency. What's your beef?
dylan97 - sorry, but we can't even guess who you are and if you are our clients or not as you claim
NSpaul - you are wrong. You cannot remove any words out of the context of the rule. Section R13.1(1) clearly states ... proceedings or application before Minister ... and word before is an integral part of the phrase and person who didn't file anything yet, didn't submit an application is not a subject of proceeding or application before Minister...
If one would follow your logic then anyone who completes an application form and puts it in the drawer for later would be already a subject of application before Minister... - it is not what the law states nor intended.
Please don't bombard me in the forum for more answers - we are very busy working and communicating with hundreds of our clients. Emails to firm are being replied to in the order of priority as it is impossible to reply to all the flood at once. Please be patient for a while.
Andre F.
Nov 15th 2008, 4:59 pm
#120
Forum Regular
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 103
Re: ANDREW MILLER
Andre F,
Communication is very important especially in immigration consulting business. Please try to understand if you wouldn't respond to your paid clients, how about the requests and letters from Consulates/High Commissions? Some medical requests MUST BE done within 60 days, we are approaching to the year-end and the long holiday is coming, doctors are leaving town and labs are closing down for the holiday season, almost forgot to mention the post office mailing cut off date is ahead of us.
I'm not your client nor trying to add fuel to YOUR fire, please don't bash me.
Communication is very important especially in immigration consulting business. Please try to understand if you wouldn't respond to your paid clients, how about the requests and letters from Consulates/High Commissions? Some medical requests MUST BE done within 60 days, we are approaching to the year-end and the long holiday is coming, doctors are leaving town and labs are closing down for the holiday season, almost forgot to mention the post office mailing cut off date is ahead of us.
I'm not your client nor trying to add fuel to YOUR fire, please don't bash me.
Received medical and other requests from visa posts are being forwarded to clients as usual within 24 hours of receipt and with no interruption, communication with visa posts is up to date and there is not a single request from visa posts not being addressed. Preparations for interviews (QIIP) are being conducted as we speak. We just can't reply immediately to clients who's questions don't require immediate attention - we need to prioritize and deal with more urgent, timely matters first, before we attend less urgent emails. Please understand that this thread caused a lot of panic especially when non-clients who don't even know the facts are adding the fuel here, no matter what you may think.
Why you even raise the issues without knowing what we are doing, just like you did now? I had to take time away from other tasks just to reply to issue you just raised. If I wouldn't reply you would complain about lack of reply and add more fuel to the fire ...
Post office cut-off dates? We are not using post offices, we and our clients are using couriers.
All of our clients (few hundreds pending cases worldwide) have no complaints, except for few here in this thread who for some (less or more valid) reasons decided to use leverage of public forum for their advantage. Why non-clients complain?
Last edited by afoks; Nov 15th 2008 at 5:09 pm.
