General discussion on CSI and Settled Status. Big issues for people on the EEA-Applications Routes

madalina91 wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 11:25 am

Frou01 wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 10:28 am

Just double checking this is a general discussion as more members replied to this one and to the same topic below? If not apologise and please delete my post.

In fact that’s a topic suddenly very important to quite a few applicants and not an invidual issue I assume?

I will post my individual question regarding my individual case straight into my thread.

Myself and many others reacted very upset by the news yesterday and I can tell a lot of people with pending applications are very worried.
The article from free movement leaves more questions than answers.

Can anyone explain to me how they understand it?
Does that mean we would have needed CSI before the 5 year qualifying period or/ and during the time before the date receiving Settled Status?

Regarding pending applications. I understand the wording in the AN has recently changed and some who applied a year, months ago might never had it and when I started my application in January I haven’t noticed.
But from what I can say I’ve seen a month ago someone posting an email by HO asking for more evidence and CSI was one of them. That application is a year old and it seems the new requirement is passed on to older pending applications. But it would be useful to get more info of people who are asked for proof of CSI when the application is from last year.

Thank you

I understand it as the 5 years preceding the period of obtaining settled status, but I might be wrong. I am finding the wording quite confusing. As I have already applied months ago there isn't much I can do at this point but wait. If I get an email from the caseworker asking for CSI, I will email them back to ask for them to apply discretion as per their guidance. Have you already submitted your application?

Yes, I did submit my application before that announcement.
But I‘m waiting since awhile now for Biometrics as there are still not appointments available.
However I prepared now a second cover letter just about that situation.
I declare there I never had CSI and the requirement changed now.
Also I explain my situation of the time before my employment more detailed. Some not quite unimportant personal circumstances and that I was interested in having a private insurance from my country even when this hasn’t been aware to me if it’s been a requirement or not and also explain I wouldn’t have been able to afford it.
I’m asking to exercise discretion. That’s all I can do unless I’m advised anything better to do or to write.

Something that may be helpful to some people are the guidance notes here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... tes-v5.pdf

There is this caveat that has been successfully used by Romanian and Bulgarian citizens, who spent some of their time in the UK as students, in thei PR applications. The same could be argued when applying for naturalisation. On page 26 of the guidance notes, it says: evidence that you had Comprehensive
Sickness Insurance for yourself and any family members for the period of study (unless previously issued with a registration certificate on the basis of residence in the UK as a student before 20 June 2011).

I, for example, have a registration certificate from what was then UKBA, saying I was in the UK lawfully and exercising my treaty rights. When I applied for that certificate CSI was not something they asked for. The Home Office only started asking for it from 20 June 2011, which is why I think they have this transitional agreement in place.

I am only leaving this here, in case it might help some people in a similar situation.

Frou01 wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 11:41 am

I declare there I never had CSI and the requirement changed now.
Also I explain my situation of the time before my employment more detailed. Some not quite unimportant personal circumstances and that I was interested in having a private insurance from my country even when this hasn’t been aware to me if it’s been a requirement or not and also explain I wouldn’t have been able to afford it.
I’m asking to exercise discretion

Keep in mind that ironically there are rules and requirements about when discretion can and should be exercised.

Nationality policy: Naturalisation as a British citizen by discretion policy guidance wrote: (Page 29 onwards)
You must only exercise discretion to disregard a period of unlawful residence if there are reasons for thiswhich were clearly outside the applicant’s control, or if the breach was genuinely inadvertent and short.
...

• the breach was because the applicant did not meet an additional/implicit condition of stay, rather than illegal entry or overstaying, such as an EEA or Swiss national not having CSI and can provide sufficient evidence to justify discretion being exercised in their favour.

You must not exercise discretion to disregard a period of unlawful residence in any other circumstances, and particularly not when the breach was both substantial and deliberate.

madalina91 wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 11:49 am

Something that may be helpful to some people are the guidance notes here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... tes-v5.pdf

There is this caveat that has been successfully used by Romanian and Bulgarian citizens, who spent some of their time in the UK as students, in thei PR applications. The same could be argued when applying for naturalisation. On page 26 of the guidance notes, it says: evidence that you had Comprehensive
Sickness Insurance for yourself and any family members for the period of study (unless previously issued with a registration certificate on the basis of residence in the UK as a student before 20 June 2011).

I, for example, have a registration certificate from what was then UKBA, saying I was in the UK lawfully and exercising my treaty rights. When I applied for that certificate CSI was not something they asked for. The Home Office only started asking for it from 20 June 2011, which is why I think they have this transitional agreement in place.

I am only leaving this here, in case it might help some people in a similar situation.

I'd be cautious about that approach. Unlike applications made under the EEA Regulations, which were governed by EU law, citizenship applications are solely under UK law. And even when it comes to non-EEA applications, there have been cases where people who got ILR (equivalent to PR) under UK immigration law, but who had not met the precise requirements of UK citizenship law, were denied citizenship.

From a UK point of view, immigration law ends at ILR/PR and citizenship law is unrelated to it (though it has the requirement of holding ILR/PR before applying). What may have been permitted under UK or EU immigration law may not meet the requirement of UK citizenship law.

secret.simon wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 11:56 am

madalina91 wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 11:49 am

Something that may be helpful to some people are the guidance notes here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... tes-v5.pdf

There is this caveat that has been successfully used by Romanian and Bulgarian citizens, who spent some of their time in the UK as students, in thei PR applications. The same could be argued when applying for naturalisation. On page 26 of the guidance notes, it says: evidence that you had Comprehensive
Sickness Insurance for yourself and any family members for the period of study (unless previously issued with a registration certificate on the basis of residence in the UK as a student before 20 June 2011).

I, for example, have a registration certificate from what was then UKBA, saying I was in the UK lawfully and exercising my treaty rights. When I applied for that certificate CSI was not something they asked for. The Home Office only started asking for it from 20 June 2011, which is why I think they have this transitional agreement in place.

I am only leaving this here, in case it might help some people in a similar situation.

I'd be cautious about that approach. Unlike applications made under the EEA Regulations, which were governed by EU law, citizenship applications are solely under UK law. And even when it comes to non-EEA applications, there have been cases where people who got ILR (equivalent to PR) under UK immigration law, but who had not met the precise requirements of UK citizenship law, were denied citizenship.

Yes, I do understand that. I guess my comment was more for anyone who has already applied for naturalisation a while back and are waiting for a response. That response could very well be an email from the caseworker asking for CSI. I am only saying that I will use the fact that I was given a registration certificate without CSI and told I was here lawfully as a reason why I did not have CSI (i.e. I got confused and made a mistake) and ask them to exercise discretion on that basis. I hope this clarifies my reasoning.

Also I am not saying it will work of course.

I understand, Simon. Thank you.

However I still have some hope the new published requirement won’t apply to those with pending applications.
Because most in those cases wouldn’t applied and had all this effort regarding their application started by learning and the first £50 for Lituk test.

I assume HO will receive from yesterday on a lot less applications by EU nationals with Settled Status SS they wouldn’t risk it - so wouldn’t I even when the news being published a minute before I want to press the submit button.

I hope that there will be a general discretion of everyone applying before 15th in that position.

I also hope for more clarity.

I for my part contacted my MP yesterday and I’m in contact with him.

Frou01 wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 12:06 pm

I for my part contacted my MP yesterday and I’m in contact with him.

Quite correct. That is the approach I would have recommended too.

secret.simon wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 12:10 pm

Frou01 wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 12:06 pm

I for my part contacted my MP yesterday and I’m in contact with him.

Quite correct. That is the approach I would have recommended too.

Yes, let’s see what he says.
I hope I won’t be the only though.

Another option would be to backdate foreign private insurance maybe?
I just try to get information. Some say 4 years is possible.
But that’s about costs, I got no costs.

I used one time my EHIC card abroad.

I also contacted Michel Barnier's team to make them aware of the issue. Email is uktf-contact@ec.europa.eu . If more people do maybe it will increase the chances it will be taken forward by them.

tcell88 wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 12:33 pm

I also contacted Michel Barnier's team to make them aware of the issue. Email is uktf-contact@ec.europa.eu . If more people do maybe it will increase the chances it will be taken forward by them.

Thank you. Will do.

Another option. I just spoke to my former insurance in Europe I used before going to UK beginning 2012.
I understand you cannot backdate an insurance you never used, but maybe one you did all the time before.
An advantage might be I haven’t caused cost, but it would also mean to pay them for these years.

So there’s my question would insurance only apply for my 5 years qualifying time towards Settled Status or as well the two years before that?

This statement has also been part of the article:

“It should also be possible to rely on residence since being granted pre-settled or settled status without supporting evidence. The policy says that “once granted pre-settled status, [citizenship applicants] will not need to demonstrate that they were exercising a treaty right”. Compliance with the EEA Regulations is relevant to “residence prior to the grant of pre-settled status, or settled status”.”

Would anyone be able to explain that?

secret.simon wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 11:29 am

Because there has been no change in the law (indeed, it is a return to the status quo ante as regards the interpretation about the status of EEA citizens and family members without CSI), it is quite likely that the CSI requirement will apply to applications already submitted but not decided.

I have actually spoken with my lawyer. He emailed me today to tell me about the change in the policy and what he said is the following:

1) Yes, applications submitted but not yet decided are affected by this change in the policy.

2) While upsetting, there is still a chance that they might not ask for it; if they do, they might exercise discretion and overlook it.

For those who have EHICs, even with gaps, it is probably a good idea to have them ready in case they ask. They might, or they might not.

secret.simon wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 11:29 am

They would look at whether you, the applicant, met all the requirements of being legally resident in the UK for the five (possibly, ten) years before the date of the application. That may require looking at whether the EEA citizen spouse had CSI during their residence in the UK as well.

When EEA citizens are not excercising treaty rights and not lawfully in the UK, I have always wondered where that leaves the employer of their non-EEA citizen family members? The employer won't know that the non-EEA citizen's RC is now invalid/that they are not in the UK lawfully, unless that employee tells them.

Under the Immigration Act 2016 on illegal working, would that mean that the employer is excused from any offence, but that the employee is not? Or is all this covered in the Withdrawal agreement and both employer and empolyee are excused?

Lnlan10 wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 12:49 pm

secret.simon wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 11:29 am

Because there has been no change in the law (indeed, it is a return to the status quo ante as regards the interpretation about the status of EEA citizens and family members without CSI), it is quite likely that the CSI requirement will apply to applications already submitted but not decided.

I have actually spoken with my lawyer. He emailed me today to tell me about the change in the policy and what he said is the following:

1) Yes, applications submitted but not yet decided are affected by this change in the policy.

2) While upsetting, there is still a chance that they might not ask for it; if they do, they might exercise discretion and overlook it.

For those who have EHICs, even with gaps, it is probably a good idea to have them ready in case they ask. They might, or they might not.

Very good point 2). I'm now thinking that it might not be wise to cause a stir, and make them not exercise their discretion. I haven't seen anyone say yet they've actually been asked for CSI evidence, and there a few positive cases in the timelines threads with settled status in UK and bachelors and masters done here.

madalina91 wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 12:00 pm

Yes, I do understand that. I guess my comment was more for anyone who has already applied for naturalisation a while back and are waiting for a response. That response could very well be an email from the caseworker asking for CSI. I am only saying that I will use the fact that I was given a registration certificate without CSI and told I was here lawfully as a reason why I did not have CSI (i.e. I got confused and made a mistake) and ask them to exercise discretion on that basis. I hope this clarifies my reasoning.

Also I am not saying it will work of course.

I'm not sure why this "caveat" you refer to would have been used just by Romanian and Bulgarian citizens. The caveat is in fact not a caviat at all but transitional arrangements introduced and applicable to all EU nationals who previously did not have to prove they held CSI. It has been used in DCPR applications by a number of nationalities.

Since one cannot apply for naturalisation without settled status or a DCPR, these transitional arrangements are only relevant to UK residents who:

• have not yet obtained permanent residency or settled status
• are planning on doing so specifically via the permanent residency route via form EEA/PR
• are specifically relying on a 5y qualifying period starting before 20 June 2011
• were students or self-sufficient in any part of their qualifying period

Moreover, those that have been in employment for any continuous 5y period after 20 June 2011 are exempt from CSI if they choose to use this as their qualifying period in their DCPR application. This includes EU nationals who may have been in the UK before 20 June 2011, as the period you choose to use is irrelevant to the date you actually arrived in the UK.

Bear in mind that the qualifying period for being lawfully resident in the UK for naturalisation purposes is separate, and starts 3 or 5 years (depending on the route) back from the date of your naturalisation application. So why would anyone go back to a period prior to 20 June 2011 and spend all this hassle provided they can simply use a later one and not worry about this at all? It will make their naturalisation application a lot more straightforward.

At present, the only people who may benefit from the transitional arrangement you refer to are EU nationals who:

• have been resident in the UK as students or self-sufficient prior to 20 June 2011
• continue to be either students, self-sufficient, or not have had any continuous 5y period spent in (self-)employment
• meet the other points raised in the bullet point list above

Given this, I suspect the pool of such applicants is very very very small.

Applicants who have settled status under the EUSS are not covered by the transitional arrangements as their settlement status is based on the 5y qualifying period immediately prior to the EUSS application date. Unlike EEA/PR applications, EUSS applicants cannot choose their qualifying period.

AnotherUUID wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 2:28 pm

madalina91 wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 12:00 pm

Yes, I do understand that. I guess my comment was more for anyone who has already applied for naturalisation a while back and are waiting for a response. That response could very well be an email from the caseworker asking for CSI. I am only saying that I will use the fact that I was given a registration certificate without CSI and told I was here lawfully as a reason why I did not have CSI (i.e. I got confused and made a mistake) and ask them to exercise discretion on that basis. I hope this clarifies my reasoning.

Also I am not saying it will work of course.

I'm not sure why this "caveat" you refer to would have been used just by Romanian and Bulgarian citizens. The caveat is in fact not a caviat at all but transitional arrangements introduced and applicable to all EU nationals who previously did not have to prove they held CSI. It has been used in DCPR applications by a number of nationalities.

Since one cannot apply for naturalisation without settled status or a DCPR, these transitional arrangements are only relevant to UK residents who:

• have not yet obtained permanent residency or settled status
• are planning on doing so specifically via the permanent residency route via form EEA/PR
• are specifically relying on a 5y qualifying period starting before 20 June 2011
• were students or self-sufficient in any part of their qualifying period

Moreover, those that have been in employment for any continuous 5y period after 20 June 2011 are exempt from CSI if they choose to use this as their qualifying period in their DCPR application. This includes EU nationals who may have been in the UK before 20 June 2011, as the period you choose to use is irrelevant to the date you actually arrived in the UK.

Bear in mind that the qualifying period for being lawfully resident in the UK for naturalisation purposes is separate, and starts 3 or 5 years (depending on the route) back from the date of your naturalisation application. So why would anyone go back to a period prior to 20 June 2011 and spend all this hassle provided they can simply use a later one and not worry about this at all? It will make their naturalisation application a lot more straightforward.

At present, the only people who may benefit from the transitional arrangement you refer to are EU nationals who:

• have been resident in the UK as students or self-sufficient prior to 20 June 2011
• continue to be either students, self-sufficient, or not have had any continuous 5y period spent in (self-)employment
• meet the other points raised in the bullet point list above

Given this, I suspect the pool of such applicants is very very very small.

Applicants who have settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme are not covered by the transitional arrangements as their settlement status is based on the 5y qualifying period immediately prior to the EU Settlement Scheme application date. Unlike EEA/PR applications, EU Settlement Scheme applicants cannot choose their qualifying period.

Thank you for this explanation.

It is unclear to me what the new guidance means but I have interpreted it as CSI being needed for anyone who has spent any time in the UK as a student in order to prove that their presence in the UK over the last (potentially) 10 years was lawful. Is my interpretation too extreme?

I am getting genuinely confused with the guidance because I do not understand if CSI is something the Home Office requires as evidence during the 5 years of settled status (so if the applicant got Settled Status in Dec 2019 then the 5 years between Dec 2019 and Dec 2014 ) or the 5 years preceding that (in my example the 5 years preceding Dec 2014)?

From having read this forum I know that being in breach of immigration law is something that is looked at by the Home Office for the last 10 years, not just for the 5 years where evidence is submitted. I interpreted the new policy guidance for students/ self-employed without CSI to be applied in the same way.

AnotherUUID wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 2:28 pm

madalina91 wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 12:00 pm

Yes, I do understand that. I guess my comment was more for anyone who has already applied for naturalisation a while back and are waiting for a response. That response could very well be an email from the caseworker asking for CSI. I am only saying that I will use the fact that I was given a registration certificate without CSI and told I was here lawfully as a reason why I did not have CSI (i.e. I got confused and made a mistake) and ask them to exercise discretion on that basis. I hope this clarifies my reasoning.

Also I am not saying it will work of course.

I'm not sure why this "caveat" you refer to would have been used just by Romanian and Bulgarian citizens. The caveat is in fact not a caviat at all but transitional arrangements introduced and applicable to all EU nationals who previously did not have to prove they held CSI. It has been used in DCPR applications by a number of nationalities.

Also I did not mean that it has only been used by Romanian and Bulgarian citizens. I meant that I saw a lot of examples on this forum of mostly Romanian and Bulgarian citizens who used the yellow registration cards successfully in their PR applications.

Lnlan10 wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 12:49 pm

secret.simon wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 11:29 am

Because there has been no change in the law (indeed, it is a return to the status quo ante as regards the interpretation about the status of EEA citizens and family members without CSI), it is quite likely that the CSI requirement will apply to applications already submitted but not decided.

I have actually spoken with my lawyer. He emailed me today to tell me about the change in the policy and what he said is the following:

1) Yes, applications submitted but not yet decided are affected by this change in the policy.

2) While upsetting, there is still a chance that they might not ask for it; if they do, they might exercise discretion and overlook it.

For those who have EHICs, even with gaps, it is probably a good idea to have them ready in case they ask. They might, or they might not.

That’s a great information. Thank you.

Does it mean your lawyer contacted HO to clarify the information we have?

madalina91 wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 2:40 pm

It is unclear to me what the new guidance means but I have interpreted it as CSI being needed for anyone who has spent any time in the UK as a student in order to prove that their presence in the UK over the last (potentially) 10 years was lawful. Is my interpretation too extreme?

I was mainly pointing out the applicability of the transitional arrangements and who they may be relevant to since they do not apply to anyone who came to the UK after 20 June 2011, and it's best to make that clear so that people don't get false hopes.

I don't think your interpretation is extreme. It's always best to err on the side of caution.

Bear in mind, after you obtain PR or settled status you do not need to have CSI for any later period of time. The problem, however, is that immigration history is looked at differently by different aspects of the BNA.

You can look at the requirements yourself as laid out in BNA 1981, Schedule 1, Section 1(2)(d) for the 5y route and Schedule 1, Section 3(d) for the 3y (married to BC) route.

The "lawful residence" requirement is for the 3 or 5 year period prior to the naturalisation application. But that's not the whole story.

madalina91 wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 2:40 pm

From having read this forum I know that being in breach of immigration law is something that is looked at by the Home Office for the last 10 years, not just for the 5 years where evidence is submitted. I interpreted the new policy guidance for students/ self-employed without CSI to be applied in the same way.

You're right. It's very confusing and it's not so black and white. We also have the good character requirement (GCR) which will consider the applicant's background, criminality, and immigration history over the last 10y from the date of application. However, different offences and convictions are dealt with differently.

For example, withholding relevant information or using deception in immigration applications over the last 10y period will lead to refusal. So, even if the applicant meets the 3 or 5 year "lawful residence" requirement as per BNA 1981 they may be refused because of, say, deception in their dealings with the HO that took place 6-10y ago thereby fail the GCR. Certain breaches of immigration laws over the last 10y can also lead to failure of GCR. The actual definition of being "in breach of immigration laws" is defined in BNA 1981 Section 50A.

EEA people's right to enter and reside is further outlined in The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 act.

Technically, under the latter EEA regulations, an EEA national can be subject to removal once they cease to have the right to reside (see Section 23(6)(a)). People have the right to reside if they continue to be a "qualified person" (QP) which for students and self-sufficient people also means they need to have have to be considered a QP (see Sections 6, 4(c), and 4(d)).

It's not immediately obvious to me where CSI stands on the matter. For example, is someone who remained in the UK (beyond the 3 month initial period) as a student or self-sufficient without CSI considered an overstayer? If so, they may be refused on GCR grounds.

The GCR guidance has no mention of CSI. On the other hand, the immigration offences that are considered in the 10y period before the application are fairly well defined. Could lack of CSI be considered as being inferred, and thereby included into any of them (in particular overstaying)? I'm not sure.

Unfortunately, apart from the newly updated naturalisation guidance which allows for discretion to be exercised, there is nothing to confirm or deny whether CSI will impact the 10y period regarding the GCR.

AnotherUUID wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 4:00 pm

Unfortunately, apart from the newly updated naturalisation guidance which allows for discretion to be exercised, there is nothing to confirm or deny whether CSI will impact the 10y period regarding the GCR.

This article appears to confirm my view, as far as I can tell, and disambiguates well between the lawful residence during the 3/5y qualifying period and lawful residence as taken into account by the GCR ("Meeting the good character requirement" section).

It would appear the issue regarding CSI continues to be a huge mess and is far from resolved when it comes to the good character requirement.

The lack of clarity from the government on the matter in their guidance is mind boggling.

What is also worrying, especially given the increasing use of citizenship stripping powers, is how this might affect citizenship applications that have been successful should they be subject to a review at any future point in time, if found that they may have retrospectively failed to meet GCR due to CSI.

AnotherUUID wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 4:58 pm

AnotherUUID wrote: ↑

Tue May 19, 2020 4:00 pm

Unfortunately, apart from the newly updated naturalisation guidance which allows for discretion to be exercised, there is nothing to confirm or deny whether CSI will impact the 10y period regarding the GCR.

This article appears to confirm my view, as far as I can tell, and disambiguates well between the lawful residence during the 3/5y qualifying period and lawful residence as taken into account by the GCR ("Meeting the good character requirement" section).

It would appear the issue regarding CSI continues to be a huge mess and is far from resolved when it comes to the good character requirement.

The lack of clarity from the government on the matter in their guidance is mind boggling.

What is also worrying, especially given the increasing use of citizenship stripping powers, is how this might affect citizenship applications that have been successful should they be subject to a review at any future point in time, if found that they may have retrospectively failed to meet GCR due to CSI.

Yes, this is exactly what I am afraid of.

Having an EHIC should help I would think?

“ Although you could take out CSI so that you are covered now, this unfortunately will not make a difference when you are looking to apply for permanent residence as your insurance cannot be backdated. Alternatively, you can use a European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) as evidence of comprehensive sickness insurance.”

third party solicitor/immigration advisor weblink removed by moderator

Frou01 wrote: ↑

Wed May 20, 2020 11:50 am

Having an EHIC should help I would think?

“ Although you could take out CSI so that you are covered now, this unfortunately will not make a difference when you are looking to apply for permanent residence as your insurance cannot be backdated. Alternatively, you can use a European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) as evidence of comprehensive sickness insurance.”

third party solicitor/immigration advisor weblink removed by moderator

Well if one already has EHIC cards that cover the period they need CSI for then they have no issue in the first place. For those that don't the issue remains the same. You cannot backdate your EHIC. They have an issue and expiry date for the period that they cover.

The problem is largely for those that have not had any non-UK insurance at all.

EEA residents who have had health insurance in their home country and whose home counties have reciprocal agreements with the UK - which is most, if not all EEA counties - can still prove, retrospectively, that they have been insured. Even if they did not have an EHIC. They can request from the relevant authorities in their home countries statements of insurance. It has been suggested that some countries can use EU form S041 (used to be E104) while other countries who have further agreements can even invoke clauses of their respective agreements.

In fact, this was the case for me, albeit back in 2013 or 2014, when I was getting my DCPR. Since one's right to healthcare in my home country is based on monthly/annual fees, they only issue EHIC cards valid for 1y, allegedly to avoid having people carry a valid EHIC after stopping their payments. When a person renews their EHIC card they take your old one - why, I don't know. But this was problematic since I had no complete set of EHIC cards to cover my stay in the UK as a student since 2008. At the time, little was known what the then UK Border Agency accepted. But, as a country with reciprocal agreement, I asked for an official letter from my home country confirming my health insurance status for the period prior to 2013 and that was sufficient - even though it was never listed as an accepted way. I further backed the case in my cover letter.

Things are of course stricter now, but for those who have been insured in their home country for a period that requires CSI, there is still light at the end of the tunnel which is not a train coming, as outlined in the link above.

Of course, HO can always turn down a document that is not explicitly listed in the guidance. Whether they will and what this would mean legally is a different story, but it's worth trying.

Great comment thank you.

I gathered all EHIC cards and attached letters (there been anyway part of my evidence documents for UKVCAS). in the beginning is a gap.
My insurance just sends me a E104 document for GB.
I spoke to them this morning and mentioned the issue
and there been really nice, I have another call on Friday
to see what else they can do for me.

I just try do get together what I can.

I guess from now on we use the category “medical” in UKVCAS account?
It used to one of those we could leave blank and would from now on use to upload all EHIC proof, insurance policy and documents?

As I’m waiting since weeks for Biometrics, could anyone advice me to upload all these new required documents into medical or others together with an additional cover letter?