Just went over Marta's case study with my consultant over phone and had a long discussion. Hope we all do figure some clues from this. There was a time when I was really fed up with my consultant for holding things up even when everything was almost ready. I was ready with most things as early as Dec-12 when the program was to open in Jan-13 (except a few requirements as ECA).
Believe me I literally had a quarrel with them through mid May-13 for making us wait unnecessarily. Now I realized why they were holding applications. It was not really hard for me to make her understand what happened. I told my consultant that Marta's file reached on 6-May and my consultant replied that it is bound to be returned because there were some changes still ongoing and it is often not the good idea to send applications within the first 10 days at least. Also, she confirmed that the Schedule 3 form on 4-May was marked with 2011 (or 2012, I don't remember what number she told, but it was older than 2013) on the footer hence had not to be used.
Not-so-word-to-word telephonic transcript below;
Q - Why should we not apply within (a vague figure) 10-12 days?
A - There tends to be some last moment changes not only with FSWP Canada but any other similar process across other countries. And this is not happening for the first time. We have seen that earlier many time with other processes with other nations as well.
(Remarks- I couldn't say much on that. She might be right, she might be wrong but that's her experience)
Q - Why it was rejected when nothing much was changed regarding applicant's information but only format of the form.
A - Not because they wanted to see same information on new format but because the footer dated earlier than 2013 and they cannot archive an older form (Online and hard-copies) with rest of the newer forms starting the opening of new FSWP this year. That's because, if they do so, in the final audit it will be highlighted and marked as Non-Conformity. And the file would be required to re-opened and start over again and satisfy the auditor.
(Remarks- Seems logical but to what extent? Can't really tell but to believe what she says)
Q - What happens with the other forms that have changed around that period?
A - If the footer has changed in any form, then same implications as above. But if footer hasn't, all the variants of the same form are essentially same and equally acceptable within the FSWP 2013.
Q- We used an older Check-list. It was updated around 17-May?
A- I know. We started downloading and filling forms around 13-May (Monday) and sending them to the verification department. We noticed when the new form arrived but the footer did not change that means they are equally acceptable in FSWP 2013. Nothing greatly changed with FSWP. Rest of the applications were then taken over with the newer form from next week.
(Remarks- I think they took some risk here. She might be telling truth but what more can I do on this.)
There was a discussion regarding Credit card but that is not in context with the above case and hence I'll not post here.
The Crux,
Considering the '+' (Consultant's experience) and '-' (they are salesmen after all and would always show a rosy picture), I'm assuming to a greater extent that what she said might be at least 75% true and correct but that is just my way of understanding things and my level of assessment. You all have the right to agree or differ from the study above.
(I hope their experience pays.)
And Marta, I still feel so bad about you. It could happen to anyone and as I said earlier, this CIC stuff is a gamble. It looks more like a game of probability and circumstances than ingenuity, which is really sad.
