Re: Thank God - ILR Success under Chp 18

[William Blake]

Yes I tried and got refused on the basis I did not come back with same leave - as mentioned above. There was a claim of late applications but I can deal with this. It's the date of posting that counts in one instance and in the other section 3c leave was in effect.

The only issue is the so called gap in 1999 regarding which they refused and said:

In view of the fact that you departed from the UK on 5 August 1999 and did not return within the currency of your leave and therefore had to obtain fresh leave to enter on your arrival to the UK

But there are so many issues around that. The relevance of TT, the fact that before immigration order 2000 leave lapsed automatically upon leaving the common travel area so one could never return on the same visa, that visas in 1999 did not operate as leave to enter, that there was no entry clearance requirements back then. So because I had left the common travel area I needed fresh leave to return. Even if I had secured an entry clearance abroad [which would not be needed and likely not given; I could have gotten an entry certificate to be safe] say to be extra safe before I travelled it would have not had any effect as leave to enter - visas back then never embodied any such permission. Leave lapsed when the holder left the UK and fresh leave was always required on re-entry. The following quote from the then Home Secretary spells out the situation before the immigration order 2000.

I wish to set out briefly the purpose of the order and its effect… Part II allows for an entry clearance to have effect as leave to enter. Provided that practical arrangements are in place, we intend that that will apply to entry clearances issued from 30 July 2000 onwards. At present, those applying for an entry clearance to travel to the United Kingdom have their applications considered by an entry clearance officer. That consideration usually takes the form of an interview. Having satisfied the entry clearance officer that they qualify for entry clearance under the immigration rules, the holders then travel to the United Kingdom. On arrival in the United Kingdom, they are interviewed again by an immigration officer. Clearly, there is some duplication. By providing for the entry clearance to have effect as leave to enter, that will be eliminated…When the entry clearance is issued, however, the order provides that, if it contains the conditions under which the holder is allowed to enter the United Kingdom, it will have effect as leave to enter the United Kingdom…The Foreign Office is also introducing new format entry clearances that will bear the conditions of entry on the face of the entry clearance. That leave will be effective for the period as specified by the entry clearance in its effective and expiry dates. For example, an entry clearance issued to a student intending to study at a United Kingdom university for three years will be valid for the full three years. Moreover, it will confer leave to enter for the full three years… The order also provides for leave to enter or remain not to lapse on departure from the common travel area…[The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs Barbara Roche); Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, Tuesday 11 April 2000, [Mr. Eric Illsley in the Chair], Draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000]


and:

20A. Leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom will usually lapse on the holder going to a country or territory outside the common travel area. However, under article 13 of the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000 such leave will not lapse where it was given for a period exceeding six months or where it was conferred by means of an entry clearance (other than a visit visa). [cf. Appendix. Part 1 - General provisions regarding leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom]

So while you were out of the UK you never had any leave. So you could never secure a grant of leave before the previous leave expired anyway. As the visa lapsed atthe point of departure.


In my case because the refusal notice was dated before my visa expired I did not get an appeal. I have since been advised that I should have resubmitted my application before leave expired in order to allow the decision to come back after my leave expired thus getting an appeal. But I only physically got the refusal letter after leave expired.

So I never got a chance to challenge the decision which as it stands is not the fair decsison. Not just because I did not get what I wanted but it is based on a wrong claims of late applications. I actually spoke to the solicitors who represented TT and he asked to see my documents but even in the five minutes convo we had he made clear that what my other solicitors should have done was to be forceful with the caseworker, accuse him of incompetence and not knowing the rules and demand an appeal as I only got the refusal letter after my leave expired - otherwise I am stuck and never getting a chance to put the facts right. I was going to try and avail myself of the concession and go for a work permit visa but now I just feel that if it is really so that I can get an appeal then maybe I should stand and fight. I feel I have a good chance of winning. What do you guys think? Sorry for hijacking your post Jes

In your case, although there is no need for you to get EC, it will be interesting to see how a tribunal will interpret the fact that you landed in the country without any leave to remain.

What do you think is the issue there ? It seems like you are suggesting something was wrong with that or am I not understanding your point? There was nothing wrong with that and in those days you could not do any other thing. Once you left UK leave lapsed, entry clearance had no effect as leave to enter, once you were out the UK you had no leave to enter. This was indeed the case with everyone ie. everyone back then had to land without leave to enter or remain.

I arrived at waterloo from France showed my student documents and was given a student visa. that was perfectly normal and acceptable then. So to make it very clear I was never present in the UK nor entered illegally. I had leave given to me on arrival.

I would like to hear as many opinions as possible as I do want to test out the strenghts of my argumwents.

[paulp]

What do you think is the issue there ? It seems like you are suggesting something was wrong with that or am I not understanding your point? There was nothing wrong with that and in those days you could not do any other thing. Once you left UK leave lapsed, entry clearance had no effect as leave to enter, once you were out the UK you had no leave to enter. This was indeed the case with everyone ie. everyone back then had to land without leave to enter or remain.

I arrived at waterloo from France showed my student documents and was given a student visa. that was perfectly normal and acceptable then. So to make it very clear I was never present in the UK nor entered illegally. I had leave given to me on arrival.

I would like to hear as many opinions as possible as I do want to test out the strenghts of my argumwents.

I'm just saying that the fact you arrived in the UK without any leave is different to TT. It's not wrong, just different. It would be good to argue in court all the points you have given.

[John]

I'm just saying that the fact you arrived in the UK without any leave is different to TT. It's not wrong, just different. It would be good to argue in court all the points you have given.

I totally agree with that. A further thought I have had is that if the conclusion is any different to that in the TT case, then that is discriminatory in favour of Visa Nationals as distinct from non-Visa Nationals.

Do note that in the TT case that representing TT was a QC! The same might be needed to argue the new case that might be needed.

[jes2jes]

I'm just saying that the fact you arrived in the UK without any leave is different to TT. It's not wrong, just different. It would be good to argue in court all the points you have given.

I totally agree with that. A further thought I have had is that if the conclusion is any different to that in the TT case, then that is discriminatory in favour of Visa Nationals as distinct from non-Visa Nationals.

Do note that in the TT case that representing TT was a QC! The same might be needed to argue the new case that might be needed.

I was thinking about William's case the whole of today in relationship with Non-Visa nationals. Please take this scenerio, a NVN who had been in the UK for say 8 years and went abroad and after five months came back (this person's visa expired after a month away from the UK) to the UK and obtained leave at port since he/she is a NVN.

Would you say that, the 4 months away without leave is not a break in continuous residency because the person does not require leave to enter the UK? I doubt. This would be the basis for throwing the case out of court and not discrimination.

As I suggested earlier in the thread, it is better to appeal to the Sec of State to use her discretion in your case and outline the good points as I told you above.

I may be wrong but this is just my thought. I believe you would need a good lawyer to argue this out but it would not be an easy battle.

The IDI's I agree would be updated in the next couple of weeks to change the definition of continuous residency or be left as it is to discourage people from using it!

[paulp]

As regards to discrimation against non-visa nationals, it was certainly the case that the visa could be extended at the PEO prior to leaving the UK, more than the 4 weeks before expiry that they usually quoted (I used to do it more than 3 months in advance). I think the applicant could also get a visa at the BHC/embassy in the home country, maybe with a little bit of persuasion, but showing an official interest to return before the previous leave to remain expired.

Moreover, I agree with jes2jes to try to appeal to the secretary of state first. It doesn't cost anything extra and there's nothing to lose. However, given that TT won on appeal to an initial unfavourable decision by an immigration judge and the HO contested all the way, I would expect resistance on their part again.

[William Blake]

Please take this scenerio, a NVN who had been in the UK for say 8 years and went abroad and after five months came back (this person's visa expired after a month away from the UK) to the UK and obtained leave at port since he/she is a NVN.

Would you say that, the 4 months away without leave is not a break in continuous residency because the person does not require leave to enter the UK

What is it about that scenario that you consider to be the act that broke the continuous residency?

Is it simply that his visa expired abroad – TT’s visa expired abroad – and it is not the length of time away as the person has not excluded six months away.

I can only assume you are saying that the person did not renew their visa before the other one expired. But isn’t that the fundamental issue here? What constitutes continuous residence? To say that continuous residency is broken when a visa lapses abroad before the other visa comes into effect is just to attempt to rewrite the IDI. It was the IDI that created this mentality / thinking that leave must be the same leave and not lapse abroad. But if one now says that a new visa must be issued abroad before the previous visa expires one is now implementing a requirement for continuous residence that does not exist in the rules. 00038_ukait_2008_tt_british_overseas_citizen makes clear continuous residence must be interpreted with respect to the rules not the IDI.

There was no requirement in the Rule that a person had to have the same leave before and after the period when they left the United Kingdom. - 00038_ukait_2008_tt_british_overseas_citizen

There is no requirement in the rule – as far as I can see but open to correction - that a person must renew a visa abroad before the previous one expires.

276A. For the purposes of paragraphs 276B to 276D:
(a) "continuous residence" means residence in the United Kingdom for an unbroken period, and for these purposes a period shall not be considered to have been broken where an applicant is absent from the United Kingdom for a period of 6 months or less at any one time, provided that the applicant in question has existing limited leave to enter or remain upon their departure and return, but shall be considered to have been broken if the applicant:
(i) has been removed under Schedule 2 of the 1971 Act, Section 10 of the 1999 Act, has been deported or has left the United Kingdom having been refused leave to enter or remain here; or
(ii) has left the United Kingdom and, on doing so, evidenced a clear intention not to return; or
(iii) left the United Kingdom in circumstances in which he could have had no reasonable expectation at the time of leaving that he would lawfully be able to return; or
(iv) has been convicted of an offence and was sentenced to a period of imprisonment or was directed to be detained in an institution other than a prison (including, in particular, a hospital or an institution for young offenders), provided that the sentence in question was not a suspended sentence; or
(v) has spent a total of more than 18 months absent from the United Kingdom during the period in question.

The principle, as it seems to us, under paragraph 276A, is that, subject to stated exceptions, a person who has had at least ten years continuous lawful residence in the United Kingdom is entitled to indefinite leave to remain. Such indeed is what is spelt out at paragraph 276B. But it seems to us to be inconsistent with the purpose of the provision to write into it, as it were, a further requirement that a person who is absent for a period of six months or less at any one time both left and returned with the same leave. If it had been thought to be sufficiently important to make that a requirement of the Rule, then we can see no reason why it would not have been drafted in those terms - 00038_ukait_2008_tt_british_overseas_citizen

We do not take the same view as the Immigration Judge about the use of the words “andâ€

[John]

Is it simply that his visa expired abroad – TT’s visa expired abroad – and it is not the length of time away as the person has not excluded six months away.

The important fact in the TT case was that TT applied for new visas before the expiry of the old ones. Plural? Yes, there were two occasions when this happened.

Accordingly, in the terms of what the Immigration Rules say " the applicant in question has existing limited leave to enter or remain upon their departure and return", the Home Office were arguing that it needed to be the same leave, on leaving and on returning to the UK, but the decision in the TT says, no, it can be different leave.

An important decision, but it certainly does not cover every circumstance.

[vinny]

[quote="GK (Long residence –immigration history) Lebanon [2008] UKAIT 00011"]1.When issues arise as to whether a person has accrued sufficient continuous residence under the long residence provisions of para 276A, so as to establish eligibility under either the “10 year ruleâ€

[paulp]

Moreover, I agree with jes2jes to try to appeal to the secretary of state first.

How do I do that? I applied asked for discretion regarding the gap and they said in addition to the gap you have late applications. I sent in recon with all document evidence proof of posting etc. and they still said I had late applications in spite of the clear evidence to the contrary and the caseworker changed the wording of the refusal grounds to say with regard to the gap that I entered the country without leave and then said that article 8 is irrelevant so they won’t give me an appeal. So what do you mean appeal to secretary of state? Can please you explain?

You can write to her directly, detailing your case up to now. You can also get your MP involved if you haven't already done so.

[paulp]

So the scenario as described as paulp is also irrelevant simply because had someone renewed a visa before leaving i.e. had I secured the student visa before I left – note I did secure the place on the course and had the documentation hence intention to return – as soon as I left the visa would have lapsed on departure even if it was for three / four years.

So back in 1999 the law acted in such a way so that as long as you were out of the country you never had any leave to enter or remain in the UK. So you could never secure a visa before the other one expired from abroad and if you did that from in county i.e. renew before you left, the renewed visa would lapse on departure. So my point about NVN must be kept in that context of immigration law in 1999. The law was in that sense consistent then as leave lapsed on departure but not only that it was not a requirement to get leave before returning but also again even if it were, there would always be a gap of visa coverage when one was out of the UK. Hence this idea of intention is relevant and from what I have researched was always the way long residence continuous residence was interpreted. That is to say that when you leave you have visa up to the point where you leave the country to ensure legality but when you are out of the UK can UK immigration law compel one to have permission to be in the UK. Seems to me all that is required by the rules not IDI is that when you come back you enter legally. If this is not the case then there is a big conflict in the law prior to immigration order 2000 and the practice of the immigration service now. That is why I feel that the correct interpretation is as set out in 00031_ukait_2006_os_hongkon i.e. that a period of absence with no taint of illegality does not break continuity. This is the interpretation that is consistent with the law.

William, I will point you to a little thing before you dismiss the "scenario ... is irrelevant". Before 2000, there were such things as multiple entry student visas. When you reentered the country, you were simply given new leave to complete previous leave. Instead of going off on tangents, keep it simple.

[William Blake]

I did not know that paulp about writing to the secretary of state, thanks for that.

So who is she?

I send my case her directly, not through Home Office? At what address?

Would my case be handled on the same rules as appeals and reconsideration i.e. if I left the country would my application to her be considered withdrawn?

So I ask her directly to grant me leave ? Do I ask her to grant me right of appeal failing a grant of leave?

This is one thing I can do.

Any other suggestions as to what I could do?

Should I re-apply?

Should I get solicitors to write back to HO to give me an appeal?

If I re-apply now won't it be automatically refused since I am an overstayer?

I have been told I can re-apply on the basis that I have had ten years continuous residence. Is this the case?

And if refused on any grounds would I get an appeal?
I know about the practice of giving new leave to complete previous leave but I am glad for you pointing that out. When one was out of the country one never had any leave and always got fresh leave on re-entry even if it was to complete previous leave because leave had lapsed on departure.

Also multiple entry entry clearances did not embody any right to exisitng leave to enter the UK prior to imm order 2000. Leave to enter only came into effect when it was given at a UK port. cf. the description from Barbara Roche above.

[paulp]

I did not know that paulp about writing to the secretary of state, thanks for that.

So who is she?

I send the letter / case to her directly or to Home Office? At what address is she - if directly?

Ooops, instead of secretary of state, it should have been the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Secretary.

Other regular posters should have the most effective address to reach her.

Have you contacted your Member of Parliament, yet? It would help if you got him/her involved and maybe he/she could also write to the Home Secretary or talk to her directly. It would be great if your MP could attest what a fine person you are and your contributions to society.

[penanglad]

William

I think the issue is that when you returned you did not have existing leave, so unlike TT, you do not come within the Rule as drafted. Therefore you will either have to challenge the Rule itself as being irrational and therefore unlawful, since it would exclude a non-visa national who was in the UK continuously for 10 years except for a week in France before 2000 (when his/her leave to remain would have automatically lapsed upon leaving the UK), or challenge the SoS's refusal to exercise discretion to waive the lapse on the same grounds. I don't know how easy it is to do either.

Your arguments make sense to me; you just need to realise your circumstances are different from TT, who was relying on the Rule and challenging the IDI's interpretation.

[penanglad]

William, I will point you to a little thing before you dismiss the "scenario ... is irrelevant". Before 2000, there were such things as multiple entry student visas. When you reentered the country, you were simply given new leave to complete previous leave. Instead of going off on tangents, keep it simple.

But, with respect, until you were given leave to complete the previous leave, you had no "existing leave" on your return. If you had accidentally bypassed immigration you would have been in the country without leave.

The situation is the same whether it is a visa national or a non-visa national - any time anyone left the UK before 2000, his/her leave automatically expired.

(I know this is crazy, since it would make sailing trips beyond the 12-mile limit horrendously impractical, but that is my understanding of the law).

[jes2jes]

I did not know that paulp about writing to the secretary of state, thanks for that.

So who is she?

I send the letter / case to her directly or to Home Office? At what address is she - if directly?

Ooops, instead of secretary of state, it should have been the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Secretary.

Other regular posters should have the most effective address to reach her.

Have you contacted your Member of Parliament, yet? It would help if you got him/her involved and maybe he/she could also write to the Home Secretary or talk to her directly. It would be great if your MP could attest what a fine person you are and your contributions to society.

Well, the Sec of State is the same as the Home Sec

Here you go on how to reach the Home "Office Crew":

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ministe ... ts/ho.aspx

Contact information
Address: 2 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DF
Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk
Telephone: 020 7035 4848
Generic Email format: firstname.surname@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

All Correspondence enquiries
Telephone: 020 7035 4848
0845 602 1739 / 0845 609 0395 (Immigration enquiries)
Fax: 020 7035 4745

By letter : The Rt Hon Jacqui Smith MP

House of Commons, Westminster, London, SW1A 0AA

By Telephone: 01527 523355

By E mail --> smithjj@parliament.uk

At one of my surgeries.The first Friday in each month.

4.30 - Feckenham Village Hall: 5.30 - Inkberrow Parish Education Centre

6.15 - Cookhill Village Hall: 7.00 till 8.00 - Redditch Town Hall

The third Saturday in each month10.00 - 12.30 - Redditch Town Hall

No appointment necessary but it may help avoid a wait if you call 01527 523355 to reserve a place

Good luck. Write to her personally and also through your MP mate!

[penanglad]

Any other suggestions as to what I could do?

Should I re-apply?

Should I get solicitors to write back to HO to give me an appeal?

If I re-apply now won't it be automatically refused since I am an overstayer?

I have been told I can re-apply on the basis that I have had ten years continuous residence. Is this the case?

What exactly have you done? I hope you have applied for judicial review within 3 months of the decision (assuming you exhausted all rights of appeal). If so, you should (ideally) also have followed the judicial review pre-action protocol which involves writing to the Home Office stating your reasons for applying for judicial review. If you have already filed your claim for judicial review, you can always write to the Home Office's solicitors at any time pointing out the strengths of your claim and why they should agree to grant you ILR, and offering to settle your claim if they agree to grant you ILR without going to court.

[paulp]

But, with respect, until you were given leave to complete the previous leave, you had no "existing leave" on your return. If you had accidentally bypassed immigration you would have been in the country without leave.

The situation is the same whether it is a visa national or a non-visa national - any time anyone left the UK before 2000, his/her leave automatically expired.

(I know this is crazy, since it would make sailing trips beyond the 12-mile limit horrendously impractical, but that is my understanding of the law).

Penanglad, have you seen this quote from Vinny for GK (Long residence –immigration history) Lebanon [2008] UKAIT 00011:
"1.When issues arise as to whether a person has accrued sufficient continuous residence under the long residence provisions of para 276A, so as to establish eligibility under either the “10 year ruleâ€

[William Blake]

Any other suggestions as to what I could do?

Should I re-apply?

Should I get solicitors to write back to HO to give me an appeal?

If I re-apply now won't it be automatically refused since I am an overstayer?

I have been told I can re-apply on the basis that I have had ten years continuous residence. Is this the case?

What exactly have you done? I hope you have applied for judicial review within 3 months of the decision (assuming you exhausted all rights of appeal). If so, you should (ideally) also have followed the judicial review pre-action protocol which involves writing to the Home Office stating your reasons for applying for judicial review. If you have already filed your claim for judicial review, you can always write to the Home Office's solicitors at any time pointing out the strengths of your claim and why they should agree to grant you ILR, and offering to settle your claim if they agree to grant you ILR without going to court.

Well the refusal was dated 15 Jan 2008, my leave lapsed 31 Jan 2008 so I got no appeal. I physically received the letter 14 Feb 2008 when my flatmate handed it to me after one of the neighbours gave it to him after it went to the wrong address. So I could not re-apply before leave lapsed to force an appeal.

Solicitors suggested JR so we started preping for that then barrister said hold on JR and let's exhaust reconsideration and re-application routes. So I submitted recon. Got it back 7 July 2008; no movement upholding exact refusal grounds even in light of recorded delivery slips and letters showing the date of the claimed late applics and commonsense deduction that considering they logged the claimed late applic as received a day after my visa expired the applic must have been posted before visa expired.

So again I pushed solicitor for JR. The first barrister did not seem like he could understand the points about the immigration order 2000. So I got another more experienced barrister who after three weeks - I am thinking he is drafting grounds - comes back and tells my solicitor he can't do anything:

The JR has no reasonable prospect of success. He has an article 8 claim. He could submit a SET(O) application under the 10 year rule but it looks like he has not complied with the rules.

I don't know his basis for saying this anyway. If article 8 claim is valid is it not in the high court that we go with it? But I actually believe I have complied with the rules. I don't have the late applications that they keep claiming and I can prove it. I think I have valid arguments relating to the trip abroad. And despite my attempts at finding out why the barrister feels this way I can't seem to get any joy on that.

When I asked the solicitors what next to do then if no JR and since I dispute the refusal grounds; a senior partner then told me:

Since you do not have further leave to remain, you could argue that you had been in the UK lawfully for 10 years, by making an application with a form SET(O) in which application you will deal with the points you dispute as regards the claimed late applications and gaps.
In your application you will also argue no doubt the case of TT ( this related to an ECO refusal but is very relevant to your case), as well as article 8 rights.


At any rate they didn't know anything about TT until I told them. And everything for them is just money money money and no results. I wouldn't mind so much if they actually advanced my case.

I then contacted another law firm - actually the one who represented TT -who have said that what should have happened was that becasue I got the refusal after my leave expired I should have been given an appeal and he asked to see some docs. He left me with the impression that he may be able to write back to HO and pressure them for an appeal. So I have just been trying to press my case forward but I can't seem to get any opportunity to state my case. They have just refused my application and just shut me out from any recourse. So I am seeking to do something but I can't seem to find the right recipe for success.

I am still within the three months time limit from the date of the recon refusal to file for JR. The recon application was also submitted as a pre-action protocol / bundle. I honestly feel that a settlement would have been reached had the JR gone in. Becasue I don't think they have any strong defence.

[paulp]

William, parallel to your attempt to "appeal" to the secretary of state, do you know if you were to make another ILR application (through solicitor so you don't get picked up), would you now be given a chance of appeal so that you can argue your case in front of the AIT? Failing that, is there any other way to get your day in court apart from JR?

[William Blake]

William, parallel to your attempt to "appeal" to the secretary of state, do you know if you were to make another ILR application (through solicitor so you don't get picked up), would you now be given a chance of appeal so that you can argue your case in front of the AIT? Failing that, is there any other way to get your day in court apart from JR?

The only other way is what the solictors who represented TT have told me but I don't know how sound it is. What he said was that because I physically got the refusal letter after leave expired what should have happened is that my solicitors should have been more forceful with the caseworker directly - accuse him of not knowng the rules and being incompemetent and demand an apeal -as I only got the letter after leave expired. I don't know if this is an entitlement or just a pressure tactic that results in appeal but I know atleast the case of one other person on this forum who had such a circumstance and got an appeal through this tactic / approach.

I kept thinking maybe it had to do with the details of that person's case but actually now I understand why. From my knowledge of the one stop appeal process if no appeal is triggered becasue of existing leave remaining one could re-apply to trigger the appeal but exactly what the rules say in such case where you get the letter after leave expires I don't know.

[paulp]

William, how many days before the expiry of your visa was your refusal letter dated? Anyway, I feel that this would be the ideal occasion to involve your MP. You can explain to him/her the circumstances in which you physically received the letter after your leave had expired, and now you are in limbo and can't appeal because you were not given the chance and any further application will be out of time.

Get your MP to fight to get you that appeal. He's there to represent you and that's the least he can do.

[vinny]

See also Appeal rights - refusal to vary leave to enter or remain (SA (Pakistan) and JM).

[penanglad]

[quote="paulp"]Penanglad, have you seen this quote from Vinny for GK (Long residence –immigration history) Lebanon [2008] UKAIT 00011:
"1.When issues arise as to whether a person has accrued sufficient continuous residence under the long residence provisions of para 276A, so as to establish eligibility under either the “10 year ruleâ€

[penanglad]

I am still within the three months time limit from the date of the recon refusal to file for JR. The recon application was also submitted as a pre-action protocol / bundle. I honestly feel that a settlement would have been reached had the JR gone in. Becasue I don't think they have any strong defence.

Whatever you do, make sure you issue a claim to safeguard your position before the end of the three months. Even if you later decide not to pursue it. And find a lawyer who can advise you on the arguments you are putting forward. If you don't understand why the barrister is saying what he is saying, ask for a conference with him face to face and get him to explain it to you. Sure, you have to pay for his time, but it may be more efficient than trying to educate the solicitor and get him to tell the barrister what you are arguing.

I don't think you should reapply, as you are already an overstayer.

[William Blake]