2017-05-10

A true patriot's response to Tim Stanley

"It's time that Remainers put the national interest first and rally behind Brexit" 




"It’s decision time: do you stand with Britain or the EU?"


Do you support Lilliput or Blefuscu in their egg wars?

When are you going to stop beating your wife?

############

I work in international IT standards for a German, French, Finnish, UK firm headquartered in Sweden. I am currently working on a pan-European defence data harmonization project. My wife is an EU citizen (German). I travel quite often and most of income from the UK’s branch of the company I work for comes from abroad – especially, but not exclusively, from other EU countries.

Post Brexit my working and personal life will become more complicated (I’ve already spent 100s of man-hours battling with the Home Office just to get a residency permit for my wife) and less lucrative. My firm, its employees, and I will probably make less money and pay less tax and we’ll spend more time on red tape. But we’ll survive, or move abroad. The people who are really going to be hit badly are less well paid and unskilled in places like Sunderland – ie the people who voted for Brexit.

I’ve yet to hear of a single concrete advantage that Brexit will bring.

So what are Tim Stanley’s arguments?

Exhibit A: those who say Britain has a big bill coming


This is a total non-issue. When in the EU we made various financial commitments – like Nigel Farage’s pension and the European Medicines Agency’s rent for the next 20 years (this in London but they’re now moving to Paris to pay rent there cos we’re leaving that too). We and the 27 will obviously argue about the amounts and presumably reach a compromise which a majority of the 27 will have to agree to. We’ll have to do this before we can start talking about trade. The amounts are significant but small beer in terms of our long term trading activities.

Exhibit B: those who believe everything the EU says


Tim writes:
"We are threatening to walk away with no deal in the hope that, in order to persuade us otherwise, the other side will offer us the best deal. This position is framed to serve the national interest. More journalists should honestly explain it."
This is just nonsense.

We can’t get a good deal. This is nothing to do with Juncker. May has ruled out a good deal. She has said she wants to end free-movement and leave the Single Market and the Customs Union. These three decisions will hurt the UK badly. The only thing left to deal over is therefore a Canada-style Free (ie low or no tariff) Trade Agreement. Both the UK and the EU will benefit (a bit) from this so it will probably happen – though it will take several years and require the unanimous agreement of the 27, so it won’t be easy. If we walk away, it is simply the FTA we shall be walking away from. We’ve already walked away from the really good stuff. In short the conversation between May and the EU has been a bit like this so far:
May:      “Give me what I want or I’ll shoot myself!”
EU:         “What do you want?”
May:      “I want to shoot myself.”
EU:         “If you do that, at best, it will hurt a lot and, at worst, it will be fatal.”
May:      “The EU are threatening to kill me!”
Given May's stance, walking away or staying in the negotiations will yield almost exactly the same outcome: loss of the advantages of Free Movement, the Single Market, and the Customs Union and, in their place, some kind of free trade agreement. (We’ll come back eventually and make an FTA even if we initially walk off in a huff cos it would be bonkers all-round not to. But an FTA will be small recompense for the trade we shall lose through our other decisions.)

Exhibit C: those who yearn for failure


We don’t yearn for failure we simply point out that failure is almost inevitable.

We shall (one day) get an FTA with the EU and (possibly) with some other countries. These new FTAs may be better than what the EU has managed to negotiate with those third countries (though this seems hard to imagine given the much bigger clout of the EU). But even if all this goes swimmingly, the resulting increases in trade are vanishing unlikely to compensate for the losses of our existing trade with the EU.

International cooperation, product standardization, regulatory harmonization, travel, migration, and trade all benefit the world in general and the UK in particular. The efforts of people like Tim Stanley and 52% of the British public (in their current mood) will put a brake on all these activities for a while – to the detriment of the UK, its international standing, and its economy. In the long run, however, the UK will come to its senses and stop trying to think it can have capitalism in one country.

So I stand with Britain and the EU.

Britain is much better off as part of the Single Market and Custom Union and will suffer when it leaves and takes away our freedom to live and work across 28 countries. I am afraid I am going to carry on saying this and fighting against isolationism and xenophobia as long as I draw breath; and if Tim Stanley thinks this unpatriotic, tough!

The real traitors are the politicians who told bare-face lies in order to get the vote they wanted. It is they who are irreparably damaging our country not people like me.

2017-05-08

Record of correspondence with the Home Office

Background to the correspondence:

EU citizens (such as my German wife - who has lived and worked here for 31 years) who wish to apply for UK citizenship or try ensure that they won't be expelled from the UK post-Brexit have to obtain a "Permanent Residency Permit" from the Home Office.

Meanwhile, the Home Office have announced that "Permanent residence status ... will no longer be valid after we leave [the EU]" so our (considerable) efforts and expense thus far has been entirely wasted unless my wife continues with an application for UK citizenship over the next 18 months or so.

The relevant 85 page form is still online and still asks (inter alia) for a list of every date of departure and date of return for every trip away the UK since the applicant entered the UK.
5.3 Have you (or has your sponsor, if applicable) had any absences from the UK since you/they entered?

Yes/No

If yes, please give details in the tables below. Continue on a separate sheet if necessary and enclose with your application.
The Home Office eventually conceded that only five years of entry and exit dates were required but I did not know this originally (they refuse to change the instructions on the form) and I wrote to ask about this:
To: nationalityenquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 2017-01-06

Dear Sir/Madam

My wife of 31 years is a German citizen and has lived with me (and worked) in the UK since 1985.

Our understanding is that, in order to apply for UK citizenship, my wife will first need to apply for a residency card.

The form for applying to UK citizenship asks her to list all trips away from the UK for the past 3 years (again as we understand the form) but the application from for a residency permit seems to require us to list all trips for the past 31 years.

Please could you confirm whether this is really the case. Does my wife really have to try and remember every single trip she has made since she came to live in the UK or will her trips over the qualifying period (3 or 5 years) suffice?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully

Dr Michael A Ward
I received an automated reply:
From: NationalityEnquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 2017-01-06

IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ THIS MESSAGE AS THE INFORMATION YOU REQUIRE MAY BE GIVEN BELOW. YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE ANOTHER RESPONSE

[A long list of instructions about applying for residency - none of which applied to my question.]

What should I do if I have a different nationality related enquiry that has not been covered by this message or by the website links provided? You should call our Contact Centre on 0300 123 2253 or email us at: FurtherNationalityEnquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk (you should provide your name, date of birth, place of birth, current nationality, immigration status and Home Office Reference number where known. A telephone number should also be provided so that we may contact you. We aim to respond to your enquiry within 20 working days.
Since I had already read all the instructions I wrote again:
To: FurtherNationalityEnquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 2017-01-06

My wife of 31 years is a German citizen and has lived with me (and worked) in the UK since 1985.

Our understanding is that, in order to apply for UK citizenship, my wife will first need to apply for a residency card.

The form for applying to UK citizenship asks her to list all trips away from the UK for the past 3 years (again as we understand the form) but the application from for a residency permit seems to require us to list all trips for the past 31 years.

Please could you confirm whether this is really the case. Does my wife really have to try and remember every single trip she has made since she came to live in the UK or will her trips over the qualifying period (3 or 5 years) suffice?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully

Dr Michael A Ward
And received the following reply:
From: generalimmigrationenquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 2017-01-12

Dear Dr Ward

Thank you for your email correspondence of 6 January.

Please note, the onus is upon the individual customers to ensure that they satisfy the requirements set out in the guidance material that accompanies each and every application form. Therefore, you are advised to read through the guidance prior to submitting a future application.

If after reading the application guidance you are still unsure as to the requirements for the application you wish to submit you should seek independent immigration advice.

Immigration advisers can help you with immigration matters, including completion of forms and representing you at a tribunal. The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) regulates immigration advisers, which means they must meet certain standards.

Please see the link below to find an immigration advisor:

https://www.gov.uk/find-an-immigration-adviser

We are unable to advise you any further on your enquiry.

Yours sincerely

Name#1
Customer Service Operations
UK Visas and Immigration
I was disinclined to let this pass:
To: generalimmigrationenquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 2017-01-12

Dear Ms Name#1

Thank you for your email.

I have read the guidance material in depth. It is labyrinthine, ambiguous, and often downright contradictory.

I asked a simple specific question. A simple answer to this question and a clarification on your website would make life much easier for three million EU citizens living in the UK and for your own officials who have to deal with applications from EU citizens.

I find your email discourteous and insulting.

Please could you advise me as to your complaints procedure.

Yours sincerely

Dr Michael A Ward
And received another reply:
From: generalimmigrationenquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 2017-01-13

Dear Dr Ward

Thank you for your email correspondence of 12 January.

Please refer to the link below for information on how to make a complaint:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-visas-and-immigration/about/complaints-procedure

I hope this is helpful.

Yours sincerely

Name#2
Customer Service Operations
UK Visas and Immigration
So I thought I'd submit a complaint:
To: complaints@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 2017-01-13

Dear Sir/Madam

[I reproduced the correspondence above and then said:]

This experience has prompted me to write to you. I have a number of concerns:

  1. The information on your website for people in our situation is labyrinthine, ambiguous, and often downright contradictory. It should be improved.
  2. When people write to you pointing out problems with the information on your website, this should be welcomed by the Home Office as useful feedback rather than treated with contempt.
  3. I see no justification for your refusal to answer the simple question I raised. A simple answer would help me, millions of others in the same boat (at least if you clarified your website), and your own staff.
  4. Even if, for some reason, it is not possible for you to answer a question from a member of the public, I do not understand why you cannot respond using an apologetic tone rather than using a rude, hostile, and condescending tone.
I look forward to receiving your response.

Yours faithfully

Dr Michael A Ward
And duly received a response to my complaint ... which didn't address anything in my complaint but which provided an answer the the question I'd asked in the first place:
From: generalimmigrationenquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk [sic] 2017-01-18

Dear Sir [sic]

Thank you for your reply of 13 January.

If your wife is required to apply for permanent residency before applying for British citizenship, the qualifying period for a permanent residence card is 5 years under the EEA regulations. Therefore information regarding absences is only required for the qualifying period.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/apply-for-a-document-certifying-permanent-residence-or-permanent-residence-card-form-eea-pr

Please note that as the onus is upon the individual customers to ensure that they satisfy the requirements set out in the guidance material that accompanies each and every application form, the UK Visas and Immigration is not able to give, indicate or advise upon the outcome of any such application prior to it being given full and careful consideration. Therefore, you are advised to read through the guidance prior to submitting a future application.

We are unable to advise you any further on your enquiry and you should seek immigration advice if you need help with permission to stay in the UK. Immigration advisers can help you with immigration matters, including completion of forms and representing you at a tribunal. The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) regulates immigration advisers, which means they must meet certain standards.

Please see the link below to find an immigration advisor:

https://www.gov.uk/find-an-immigration-adviser

I hope this clarifies the matter.

Yours faithfully

Name#3
Customer Service Operations
UK Visas and Immigration
I tried again:
To: generalimmigrationenquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk CC: complaints@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 2017-01-18

Dear Name#3

While this is a response, of sorts, to my original question – a response which you initially refused to provide - it is not a response to my *complaint* (please see points 1-4) below. Since I have received an unsatisfactory response to my complaint, I should now like to escalate my complaint. I note that https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/553890/Complaints_Management_Guidance_September_2016.pdf Section 7.1 states:

“When any verbal or written response to the complaint is provided, the complainant must be informed about how they can take forward their complaint if they are not satisfied with the reply. SOPs include templates and standard paragraphs containing the prescribed wording.”

So you are in breach of your own rules here. I now look forward to a review of my original complaint by someone at Grade 6 or above.

Yours sincerely

Dr Michael A Ward
For once they got straight back to me (though apparently without reading anything I'd written to them first):
From: generalimmigrationenquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk [sic - not, I note, from complaints] 2017-01-18

Dear Sir [sic]

Thank you for your further reply of 18 January.

Please refer to the following link regarding the complaints procedure. [We seemed to be going round in circles at this point.]

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-visas-and-immigration/about/complaints-procedure

I am sorry I am unable to assist further.

Yours faithfully

Name#3
Customer Service Operations
UK Visas and Immigration
So I tried to escalate matters:
To: complaints@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 2017-01-18

Dear Sir/Madam

I should like to add the behaviour of Ms Name#3 (please see below) to my escalated complaint.

Yours faithfully

Dr Michael A Ward

[record of correspondence so far]
My complaint was not upheld.
From: lsecsu@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 2017-01-27

Thank you for your email correspondence of 18 January, where you have raised a complaint about the handling of your enquiry of 13 January.

I have assessed the circumstances relating to the matter you have complained about. With this work now complete, I have based my response on my findings. I am not upholding your complaint and I hope my reply helps you to understand the reasons why.

You have expressed your dissatisfaction at the misleading information on our website and have asked for it to be improved. You also say that you have received an unsatisfactory response to your complaint asking if your wife needed to apply for permanent residency before she could apply for British citizenship. You have requested that we escalate your complaint as you feel we are in breach of our own rules.
I am sorry to hear of your experience in using the website, we find customer feedback valuable in order to improve the services provided and your comments have been forwarded on. Further feedback can be provided via the following website address: www.gov.uk/contact/govuk

Our records shows your email dated 13 January about the advice you received from the Nationality Enquiries Team was forwarded to General Immigration Enquiries who are not part of the Complaints Team. They replied to your email on 18 January. I am sorry if you were dissatisfied with the information provided.

[more information about recruiting an immigration adviser]
I escalated my complaint (again) to complaintsreview@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Dear Sir/Madam

I write to request a review of my complaint CMS Reference: 131-137272.

I should like a review because you have not addressed any of the complaints I made.

NB I did not escalate my complaint because I felt you were in breach of your own rules. I escalated my complaint because the original response I received was unsatisfactory. Your response was also in breach of your own rules, but that was not the reason I found it unsatisfactory. I found it unsatisfactory because it did not address my complaint.

My original complaints were that:

  1. The information on your website for people in our situation is labyrinthine, ambiguous, and often downright contradictory. It should be improved.
  2. When people write to you pointing out problems with the information on your website, this should be welcomed by the Home Office as useful feedback rather than treated with contempt.
  3. I see no justification for your refusal to answer the simple question I raised. A simple answer would help me, millions of others in the same boat (at least if you clarified your website), and your own staff.
  4. Even if, for some reason, it is not possible for you to answer a question from a member of the public, I do not understand why you cannot respond using an apologetic tone rather than using a rude, hostile, and condescending tone.
To which I added a specific complaint about Name#3’s rudeness towards me in her responses to my original complaint.

My reasons for asking for a review are as follows:

  • You still have not corrected your form which still asks “Have you (or has your sponsor, if applicable) had any absences from the UK since you/they entered?” [5.3];
  • you have not apologized for the behaviour of your staff (in initially refusing to answer a simple question);
  • you have not apologized for the rude and hostile tone of you staff in all their correspondence with me; and
  • you have not given any indication that you would expect your staff to behave in a different fashion in future.
I look forward to your response

Yours faithfully

Dr Michael A Ward
And since the Home Office had now confirmed to me twice in writing that the wording of the form was incorrect, I thought I should take up the suggestion that I provide feedback "via the following website address: www.gov.uk/contact/govuk":
I submitted the following message on 2017-01-27

At 5.3 the form states:

5.3 Have you (or has your sponsor, if applicable) had any absences from the UK since you/they entered?

Yes No

If yes, please give details in the tables below. Continue on a separate sheet if necessary and enclose with your application.

It should say

5.3 Have you (or has your sponsor, if applicable) had any absences from the UK during the five-year qualifying period?

(at least according to the letter I received from Robert Goodwill MP - the Immigration Minister)

The online version of this form has the same error. [NB This requirement has, meanwhile, been dropped from the online form but not from the pdf form.] Please could you correct it ASAP as this is causing a lot of confusion and distress for EU citizens applying for proof of residency.

I received a reply:
From: support@govuk.zendesk.com 2017-01-31

Dear Dr Michael A Ward

Thank you for your message. Unfortunately the GOV.UK support team can not provide direct advice on visas, application process/timeframes, immigration or general guidance.

You must contact the UK Visas and Immigration team (UKVI) directly for advice:

- https://www.gov.uk/contact-ukvi/visas-and-settlement

[lots of other URLS]

Kind regards

Name#4

GOV.UK

Government Digital Service

I responded and tried again to explain:
2017-01-31

Dear Ms Name#4

Thank you for your email, but you seem to have misunderstood my message to you.

I do not require any advice on visas, application process/timeframes, immigration or general guidance.

I simply wanted to draw you attention to an error on your website.

When I drew this error to the attention of UK Visas and Immigration team, they suggested I got in touch with you. I understood them to be saying that correcting the website is your responsibility not theirs.

Please could you correct the forms on your website. You can confirm that this is an error by speaking to UKVI or to Robert Goodwill MP.

Yours sincerely

Dr Michael A Ward

Another reply
From: support@govuk.zendesk.com 2017-02-03

Dear Dr Michael A Ward

Your feedback has been passed on to the team at the UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) who manage this material. They will review your comments, but will only be able to deal with your query if it relates to an error with the website or its content.

In the meantime your original query with GOV.UK will now be closed.

Best wishes

I got straight back:
2017-02-03

Dear Ms Name#4

My query does relate to an error with the website and its contents.

I have already been in touch with UKVI. They put me in touch with you.

I do not understand why you are being so difficult about this. Why not simply correct the error?

Yours sincerely

Dr Michael A Ward

And, to Name#4's credit she got straight back to me:
From: support@govuk.zendesk.com 2017-02-03

Dear Dr Michael A Ward

You were previously told incorrect information. GOV.UK cannot advise.

The content you are querying in the PDF guidance is managed and owned by the UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI). I have to pass over to them for them to reply to you directly.

Best wishes

I never heard from UKVI regarding the incorrect form but I did receive a response to my complaint review.
From: LSECSU@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 2017-02-20
Dear Dr Ward
Thank you for your further email correspondence of 27 January about the handling of your previous correspondence. I am conducting a review of your complaint following your further submissions.
Your complaint
You remain dissatisfied with the handling of your complaint. You say that our previous reply of 27 January did not fully address your concerns. You maintain that the response you received from Ms Name#3 on 18 January was rude. You reiterate that we initially refused to answer a simple question about the requirements for your wife to qualify for permanent residency. You also say that your comments about the section relating to absences on the EEA (PR) application form have been ignored. You would like an apology for the reply received by Ms Name#3 and an indication of expected staff behaviour in the future.
My decision
I should clarify that your email of 13 January, which you routed through our complaints email address, was not considered to meet with our definition of a complaint. It was therefore sent to our Public Enquiries team for reply. For this reason, Ms Name#3’s reply did not provide you with information on how you can escalate your enquiry should you remain dissatisfied.
Unfortunately, from looking at your email again, it is clear that this was a mistake on our part. Your correspondence was in relation to dissatisfaction with a previous reply you received from our Public Enquiries Team and it should have been handled through our internal complaints process. I am very sorry for this oversight.
However, Ms Name#3’s reply did provide you with the answer to your query. While I am sorry if you felt the rest of her reply was rude, we are not always able to provide specific answers in relation to an enquiry. Ms Name#3’s reply was explaining when we are unable to provide information. I am satisfied that her reply was not intentionally rude, however I have asked that the way this information is conveyed to the customer is looked at again.
I would like to thank you for highlighting that the information on the EEA (PR) application form is contradictory to what is contained on our website. Officials are already looking into this, and are also working to make the form more user-friendly and accessible to applicants. Feedback such as this does help us to improve our services.
In view of the above information, I am satisfied that your complaint on this matter is partially upheld. A reply to your enquiry was provided, although not through our complaints channel, and I am satisfied that Ms Name#3’s reply was not intentionally rude.
My response now concludes our internal complaint procedure but should you remain dissatisfied with this reply, you may raise the matter with Dame Julie Mellor, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (see her website: www.ombudsman.org.uk).
Yours sincerely
Name#5
Head of Performance and Customer Service
This was more conciliatory in tone but they still have not corrected their form and I expect they are still going to carry on being rude and dismissive to anyone who tries to question the instructions on their website. So I thought I should take this one step further:
To: Ombudsmand via Naz Shah MP by postal service 2017-03-09


The details of your complaint

I complained that the information on the Home Office website for people in our situation was labyrinthine, ambiguous, and often downright contradictory and suggested it should be improved. (The final response from the Home Office does at least say that its officials are "looking into this".)

I also said that when people write to the Home Office pointing out problems with the information on its website such submissions should be welcomed by the Home Office as useful feedback rather than treated with contempt. (The final reponse from the Home Office partially concedes this point but offers no apology for the original response.)

I complained that there was no justification for the Home Office's initial refusal to answer the simple question I raised and pointed out that a simple answer would have helped me, millions of others in the same boat (at least if they clarified their website), and the Home Office's own staff. (The final response from the Home Office alludes to this point but does not address it.)

I concluded by suggesting that even if, for some reason, it is not possible for the Home Office to answer a question from a member of the public, I did not understand why they cannot respond using an apologetic tone rather than using a rude, hostile, and condescending tone. (Again, the final reponse from the Home Office alludes to this point but does not address it.)

I then added a specific complaint about Name#3’s rudeness towards me in her responses to my original complaint. (The final reponse from the Home Office devotes a lot of attention to this aspect of my complaint and acknowledges that the Home Office made a mistake but does not address the general problem - of which Ms Name#3's behaviour was merely a symptom.)


Did the organisation miss any of the issues you raised in your complaint?

The Home Office have still not corrected their form https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/505032/EEA_PR__03-16.pdf which asks “Have you (or has your sponsor, if applicable) had *any* absences from the UK since you/they entered?” [5.3] and asks applicants to list them all.

The Home Office have still not apologized for the behaviour of their staff (in initially refusing to answer a simple question);

The Home Office have still not apologized for the generally hostile and antagonisitc tone of their staff in all their correspondence with me; and

The Home Office have still not given any firm indication that they would expect their staff to behave in a different fashion in future.

How have you, or the person you represent, been affected by what has happened?

My wife and I, already very upset by the uncertainly over our future which Brexit has caused were extremely distressed by the hostile and antagonisitic attitude of the Home Office and their refusal/failure to correct incorrect and misleading information on their web site.


If we are able to take on your complaint, what are you hoping we can achieve?

A correction to the instructions on form https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/505032/EEA_PR__03-16.pdf which states that only five years of entry and exit dates are required.

A genuine apology for the hostile and antagonistic tone of Home Office immigration and visa staff and assurances that the Home Office will adopt a less hostile and antaognistic stance in future.

The Ombudsman kindly agreed to take my complaint forward. I have just received this update on the (lack of) progress of their attempts to get a response from the Home Office:

Dear Dr Ward,

Your complaint with the Parliamentary Ombudsman

I hope you are well.

When we last spoke, I said I was waiting to receive some information from UKVI regarding your case before agreeing a way forward.

I have yet to hear from UKVI since then. I have therefore written to UKVI to ask if it would be willing to write to you and explain any changes it has made in relation to the EEA (PR) form and guidance. I am currently awaiting a response and have chased this today.

I will next be in touch when I hear back from UKVI. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please feel free to get in touch on the below details.

Kind Regards 
Name#6
Project Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
The 85 page form on the Home Office website has still not been corrected (see section 5.3).

Reading the Home Office's Complaints guidance for UK Visas and Immigration, Immigration Enforcement and Border Force I note that
  • Incivility.
  • Brusqueness.
  • Isolated instances of bad language.
  • An officer’s refusal to identify themselves when asked. [and]
  • Poor attitude, for example, being unhelpful, inattentive or obstructive.
are all considered "minor misconduct complaints" and are "complaints about the professional conduct of IBD staff [...] which are not serious enough to warrant a formal investigation". If such complaints are substantiated "they would not normally lead to discipline (misconduct) proceedings".