Pages
- Open Source Vs Tech Nation
- Discussion
- Personal Statement
- Letter of Claim
- Documents
- Pull Request
- Privacy Policy
Letters
Letter Of Claim
Dear Sirs,
We are writing this letter in accordance with the pre-action protocol for professional negligence claims.
Please confirm the identity of your insurers. Please note that your insurers will need to see this letter as soon as possible and it may affect your insurance cover if you do not send this to them.
On the 25th of April 2018, you received a payment of £456 for starting of a Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) Visa application from within the UK from me. On the 17th of May, the application was referred to the designated competent body, Tech Nation. By July the 5th, I had submitted the on-line form on the YouNoodle portal, and sent the printed copy off to the Home Office. Around the same time, I received my Tier 2 curtailment notice by post, with August 24th being the final date by which I had to leave the UK.
One month later, on the 1st of August, the decision was made which I received on the 3rd of August via email. My application was turned down, however it had made up reasons such as that the letters of recommendation were from people from the same company which they weren't. I applied for the review process, which started and was to be complete in due time.
On the 20st of August, I received the response for the review, which was turned down again. However, whereas in the initial decision, I had passed my key criterion regarding innovation, the review stated that I didn't pass it anymore which accounts for fresh reasons for refusal. In addition, it contained such information as that my packages were made using frameworks, that the "expert" could not see GitHub profile and that I was expected to have a "community profile".
According to the review process, paragraph C12 of the guidance document:
If there are fresh reasons for refusal which were not notified originally, you will be able to submit a further Endorsement Review request limited to those fresh reasons.
On the same day, I complained to you that the decision was biased, that my packages were not made using frameworks and that I did put a link to my GitHub account in the application. You forwarded my concerns to Tech Nation, who in 2 days replied that in both cases, independent experts who are highly qualified professionals in the field, concluded that I didn't match the criteria, and I had no options but to find alternative visa routes.
However, I had other options which was to submit a further Endorsement Review, because the original decision had no problem with me passing my key criterion regarding innovation. I didn't ask to review that, whereas C11 states that the review will focus on areas which I asked to be reviewed.
It is not sole Tech Nation's responsibility to process applications. If they could not check that the letters of recommendation were from people from different companies, you too had certain due care to verify this fact before returning the decision to me. But I claim that I was in your duty of care when you acted as a mediator between me and Tech Nation when I complained about the inaccuracies of the review, and according to your professional code of conduct and C12, you had to know that I had more options such as submitting a further endorsement review request, even limited to the fresh reasons.
If I were able to do that, I would have pointed out that:
- 62 packages WERE a definite track record;
- There WAS a link to the GitHub account which showed 6k contributions to Open Source, which is a very high number;
- That tools that I described in the application, WERE innovative as there's no analogue to a context-testing framework;
- That I WASN'T required to have a community profile by the Guidance. I had chosen the innovation key criterion, and the "potential" and "continous learning" qualifying criteria, and the potential had an example of showing a letter from a collegue, so that nowhere in the guidance does it state that I was required to have a community profile which Tech Nation claims to be compulsory.
Having understood that I was targeted by Tech Nation who comes up with random lies, I would have joined an engineering trade union to protect my rights as an IT professional, and would have been able to receive further financial assistance to hire a lawyer to deal with them in court should Tech Nation had lied again.
Moreover, it is clear that the review produced by Tech Nation is not a professional expert review as I did not make my tools using frameworks. I have appointed an expert to testify that such statement is not only completely inaccurate, as software tools cannot be made using frameworks, but is offensive to an artistic person who creates packages from scratch, as I have shown in the application. Such statement is similar to accusation of plagiarism. The guidance required to demonstrate skills and achievements and an ability to build technical infrastructure. To say that someone used frameworks in his work, is to assess her skill level as low to average, which is an incorrect assessment of my skill level, clearly done by somebody who has no expertise in the field. This is professional negligence on Tech Nation's side, which is outside of the scope of this claim.
Because the review contained new fresh reasons, it was your responsibility to offer me another chance for the review. Instead, you sided with Tech Nation by agreeing that I had no more option, and thus and broke the Tier 1 protocol, therefore I'm going to sue you for professional negligence.
The direct loss that I suffered was the £456 paid for the application. When I returned home on the 24th of August, I then applied for the tourist visa to be able to see my girlfriend and grab some of my stuff left in England. I paid £300 for the process, and received a rejection, which was justified by the fact that the funds were put into my account just prior to the submission of the application, and that I didn't prove the relationship with my girlfriend. I don't see the reason why I couldn't put money on my account whenever I wanted to, if I kept them at home, ready to be deposited when needed. Also, there was never a requirement to confirm relationship with the person who's inviting you, as the guide explicitly said, don't send pictures. Apart from that, I didn't prove that we had permission from her residence for me to stay, which is fair enough.
However, this means that the Home Office already formed a bias against me by coming up with such harsh requirements as having to show source of the funds, and prove relationship. If you let me object to Tech Nation and ensured that the process was completely fair via C12, my reputation would not have suffered so much and there would not have been further prejudice against me from the Home Office.
It's a basic human right for fair trial. Although it wasn't a court case, I still had the right for fair evaluation of my application. If somebody tells outright right of my professional work, I at least must have a chance to respond, but you didn't ensure that and my dignity suffered. It became really difficult to cope psychologically as well, because I sent complaints to your Data Protection Officer, in which she confirmed, that my choice of criteria is my personal data, and clearly it was the key criterion 2 which was used to evaluate my application (no github, stackoverflow, conferences), which I didn't chose. This violates the proportionality principle of the GDPR as data must be collected only for the agreed purposes, and I didn't consent to processing it against criterion I didn't choose. This again shows your negligence because you just formed the bias against me as of somebody who cannot accept rejection. I also complained to the ICO, who also turned down my complaint, not even understanding the essence of it which was extremely annoying. I'm a professional in European IT law myself and it's humiliating that I'm treated like a fool by everyone because Tech Nation cannot do its job, lies about my work, and I can't invoke any mechanisms to protect myself against this sort of behaviour. If I had money, I would be able to find a lawyer, and sue you as well as ICO for failing to protect my GDPR rights and for intentional data breach, and received compensation.
Because of the psychological abuse by Tech Nation, I became unstable mentally and started to perceive conspiracy against me. In summer, I wrote to the Home Office with the query regarding my passport which I didn't collect on time from the embassy. You said you sent it the authorities but they didn't receive it. I asked you for a "note" reference number in the email which you ignored. I sent another email with the same request from a different email address which you also ignored. I then sent another email with a threat that "soon everyone will know how capitalists/zionists run you country which has become completely degenerate". After this, I will probably not be able to ever enter the UK again.
You must understand that it is because of your negligence that I was put into this mental state. I tried everything that I could, knowing that Tech Nation is intentionally lying about me, which is extremely difficult to cope with, because I know they are committing a crime, they know it, yet I'm powerless. This is why there is paragraph C12 that allows people to speak up. Instead, you granted Tech Nation complete autonomy. I don't think that your country is degenerate or is run by conspiring Zionists/capitalists anymore. I was in a paranoid mode because I was mentally exhausted by the situation that you bear direct responsibility for. As the Home Office, you know the requirements for the visa yourself, so there is no reason why you cannot open them and see that I wasn't ever required to submit evidence for a community profile, or that my application actually contains a link to the GitHub profile. But you didn't do it which is negligent and not up to the standard required of you by law of professional duty of care.
If I were to ever apply again, there's no way I could get another visa because of the conflict. Therefore you should pardon me my racist remarks and understand the reasons for them: Tech Nation's directors are venture capitalists whose businesses benefit the most from the visa, and clearly Tech Nation are not held accountable to anyone, while being allow to write outright lies in reviews and then tell people that they have no right to object to them. Mr Matthew Gould who was the director general of DMCS that sponsors Tech Nation, says he's a Zionist, and I wrote him too with the complaint which was never answered. This is why I said what I said.
If not for your negligence in verifying of the decision and the review, there is a chance I could have got the visa. Now I have to make new application which will cost me additional money. Moreover, if I was to stay in England with the Tier 1 visa, my girlfriend who also worked in the UK, could have stayed with me, but instead she had to leave because she couldn't secure a work permit despite being offered jobs at two hospitals in London. Because of Tech Nation's abusive behaviour and your negligence, lives of 2 young hard-working people have been ruined for completely no reason.
Despite not getting the visa, I have shown that I did make significant contribution to the digital technology sector, bigger than any of the actual Tech Nation visa holders. I said that I was going to do it in the application, and I kept saying it after the rejection, but you didn't listen. This only means that Tech Nation is completely incapable of assessing applications properly, and it is not subjective, as all the facts can be independently verified. You should recognise my contribution which is confirmed by a number of companies and developers, and concede the facts that a) the guidance does not require to show a community profile and it's unjust to then demand one as has been done; and b) that the reviewer's language is hostile and she is not an expert. The GDPR prescribes to keep record of all communications that contained personal data, therefore Tech Nation must have the record of them passing my application to their panel of experts. I'm confident this record doesn't exist, and you as joint Data Controller with Tech Nation, should find and verify such record, and then if it exists, ask the "expert" what frameworks I used to create my context-testing framework and which other frameworks with such feature exist which gave him the right to say that I need more proof of what I'm doing is truly innovative.
In sum, you were negligent not to allow me to submit further review for new reasons in accordance with C12 which led to a lot of frustration, and in not checking that what Tech Nation says is in line with actual requirements for skill, achievements and ability to build technical infrastructure. To settle this out of court, you should allow me to apply again under the same conditions as if I was applying from within the UK, but also let me submit updated evidence, although based on the original one as well as it was perfectly suitable for the process. My application must then be processed by a web computing fellow from RAENG under Tech Nation's criteria from the guidance because I don't ever want to deal with these intimidating liars again. You should also help my girlfriend with the visa process because she deserves to be a pharmacist for all those years that she spent in the UK. I had certain responsibilities to her, and it wasn't my fault that somebody from Tech Nation hijacked my application to write an abusive review, which is ready to be confirmed in court by numerous real experts in the field of Software Engineering.