The First-tier Tribunal (Basic Regulatory Chamber) has dismissed the enchantment in opposition to cancellation of the OISC accreditation of an organisation, Anzan Immigration Attorneys, and its sole adviser Mr Ali Rahmanyfar after numerous breaches of the code of requirements. The case is Anzan Immigration Attorneys v Workplace of the Immigration Companies Commissioner [2024] UKFTT 901 (GRC).
Mr Rahmanyfar utilized to OISC for registration on 10 September 2021 beneath the title “Anzan Centre”, this was later modified to “Anzan Immigration Lawyers”. Registration was accepted on 18 November 2021.
Mrs Odubela paid Mr Rahmanyfar £4,500 in instalments beginning on 3 November 2021, previous to OISC registering the organisation and adviser. The funds have been for work referring to her asylum declare after she was misled into believing that “only a lawyer could write her statement and present it to the Home Office” and that this have to be accomplished earlier than she might declare asylum. She later came upon that free recommendation was out there and the British Pink Cross helped her discover a authorized support lawyer.
Mrs Odubela then sought a refund on the idea that she had been misled and he or she additionally mentioned that no work had truly been accomplished. British Pink Cross assisted with a criticism to the adviser who initially denied having been paid in any respect till receipts have been produced following which a refund of £500 was supplied.
Mrs Odubela made a criticism to OISC in January 2023. She mentioned that her psychological well being had deteriorated, her household had additionally been impacted, and he or she had waited unnecessarily to make her asylum declare. She sought a refund of the money she had paid to Mr Rahmanyfar.
The investigation by OISC discovered a number of breaches of the code of requirements (since replaced) in addition to the availability of unregulated recommendation and help. Each Mr Rahmanyfar and the organisation had been conducting work above OISC stage 1. Mr Rahmanyfar’s father had apparently additionally offered immigration and providers referring to Mrs Odubela’s case, although he had his OISC registration cancelled and had been prosecuted on 4 April 2010 for giving unregulated immigration recommendation.
As a part of the investigation OISC had obtained a duplicate of the “Home Office’s application list” which confirmed that there had been a variety of asylum purposes submitted by Anzan Immigration Attorneys over a number of years. This included purposes submitted outdoors this era of registration with OISC and the purposes have been work past that permitted at OISC stage 1.
OISC mentioned that “At the first and only initial consultation that should have taken place, Mr Ali Rahmanyfar had two options as a Level 1 adviser, he could have signposted Mrs Odubela to a Legal Aid firm or he could have arranged an appointment at the Home Office’s AIU.” At that time his involvement with the case ought to have ended.
OISC discovered that there had been breaches of 19 completely different codes and cancelled the registration of the organisation and Mr Rahmanyfar on 19 March 2024 efficient from 17 April 2024. Mr Rahmanyfar appealed the choice on 20 March 2024.
So many breaches…
I’m not protecting the entire breaches right here as there have been so many and I believe that lots of you can be studying the judgment in full (and if you’re an OISC adviser you’d be nicely suggested to take action).
Mr Rahmanyfar mentioned that he had carried out 6 hours of head to head consultations (over three appointments) and 9 hours and 46 minutes of phone consultations (over eight appointments) from November 2021 to February 2022. This was accomplished with a view to full a case assertion which OISC described as “unnecessary and unhelpful to Mrs Odubela’s asylum claim and merely replicated work that the Asylum Intake Unit (AIU) would have completed in a timelier manner and at no cost”.
The tribunal discovered that it was “very clear” that Mr Rahmanyfar was finishing up preparation of an asylum assertion which is stage 2 work, past what he was authorised to do. This was no matter whether or not he deliberate to ship it to the Dwelling Workplace or to an authorised stage 2 particular person/organisation to submit.
The tribunal mentioned that Mr Rahmanyfar “also referred to the giving of advice on her asylum claim frequently during his oral evidence, an activity he was not authorised to do”. The tribunal concluded that there had been a “clear breach” of code 3 which is that organisations and advisers should solely act inside their stage of authorisation.
The tribunal held that the failure to advise Mrs Odubela that she might declare asylum herself led to delays which can influence on her credibility with the Dwelling Workplace. That and the failure to signpost to an acceptable adviser from the beginning have been held to be breaches of code 4 (have to be match and competent throughout the class authorised), code 5 (should act competently when offering immigration recommendation or providers) and code 12 (should act in consumer’s greatest pursuits). The tribunal reiterated that Mr Rahmanyfar was not obligated to seek out Mrs Odubela an appropriately certified advisor however merely to inform her that he couldn’t help and he or she wanted to seek out another person.
There was nothing to indicate that Mrs Odubela had agreed to Anzan’ phrases and situations or any signed document of a retainer. There was a consumer care letter that Mrs Odubela denied receiving however no different letters despatched to her with an replace on progress. The tribunal held that this was a breach of code 29 which mentioned that organisations and advisers should be sure that shoppers are stored updated on the progress of their case and at a minimal are up to date each three months.
The tribunal discovered that due to a scarcity of readability from the attendance notes as to who had been in attendance on any given date and the period of time spent that there was a breach of code 7 which is that advisers should clearly determine themselves when giving immigration recommendation or immigration providers.
The tribunal was additionally glad that the adviser’s father was current in at the least one of many attendances and that Mrs Odubela’s notion had been that he was offering her with recommendation. This was held to be a breach of code 8, that organisations should be sure that unauthorised individuals don’t present immigration recommendation or providers on their behalf.
The tribunal held that there had been a breach of code 61 which is that costs have to be affordable and straight relate to the work accomplished. They mentioned that no typed assertion had ever been produced and the work claimed was extreme and there was little proof that 10 hours had been spent on attendances with Mrs Odubela.
The tribunal additionally discovered a breach of code 11, responsibility to not mislead shoppers or potential shoppers, stating that
Mr Ali Rahmanyfar exploited Mrs Odubela’s lack of information to cost for work which was pointless and past his authorisation. It was not doable to determine her as a susceptible particular person per se, regardless that many asylum seekers are susceptible due to their life experiences. There was little doubt that she had been misled concerning the extent to which Mr Ali Rahmanyfar might help her declare – in actuality, he might legitimately do little or no.
One other breach was that the money from Mrs Odubela was not paid into and held in a separate consumer account as was required by code 64.
The tribunal discovered that an aggravating function of this case was Mr Rahmanyfar’s “continued failure to understand the limitations of his authorisation” and the truth that he continued to take care of that he had not carried out stage 2 work within the face of “overwhelming evidence” on the contrary. He additionally expressed no remorse or regret through the enchantment.
Along with upholding OISC’s choice and dismissing the enchantment, the tribunal used section 89(5) of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1999 to direct that the charges have been repaid to Mrs Odubela inside 28 days of the choice.
Conclusion
Other than the clearly egregious parts of this case, this can be a reminder of the significance for OISC advisers of solely finishing up work which is inside their competence. Any advisers who do work they aren’t appropriately certified to do will danger damaging their consumer’s case. Anybody who desires to hold out work at a better stage should increase their accreditation accordingly or danger their (and doubtlessly their organisation’s) registration being cancelled in its entirety.
All OISC stage 1’s ought to assessment the steering on competence which units out work permitted at level 1 regularly and replicate on their follow to make sure that they’re performing in accordance with their regulatory necessities and the regulation, and that compliance is clearly documented on file.
