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

Miss A wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 29, 2020 12:54 pm

I found a campaign going on twitter called bye bye to csi, which was set up by a group called the 3million. They urge every EU citizens to write to their MP to call on government to scrap the need of csi. I think it will make a significant impact if everyone could do this.

Done:

Dear XXX

I am one of your constituents.

I'm an EU citizen and have been here since 1992 with my family - at the moment, given the uncertain times we live in, me and my family are going through the process of applying for British citizenship.

Last month, an updated guidance of the Home Office made clear that for some EU citizens with Settled Status who are applying for British citizenship, the infamous Comprehensive Sickness Insurance (CSI) is coming back to haunt them.

To become a British citizen, EU citizens with EUSS who were students or self-sufficient in the qualifying period, will need to show that they had CSI. ​

Becoming British is a personal choice, but for those who want to, the option should be as simple as possible.

The Government has confirmed time again that it wishes to make EU citizens feel welcome in the UK - and that we are appreciated as friends, neighbours and colleagues.
​
Please note the following points:
​
Until 2017, CSI was hardly known as a requirement to be exercising treaty rights - for those not working. In our daily life it was not needed, as EU citizens we had access to the NHS. The NHS never asked for any insurance;

To require it now in citizenship applications for those who apply with EUSS is not in the spirit of what was promised by the current and previous governments. After all, it was dropped for EUSS - Theresa May even stated it explicitly in her Open Letter to All EU Citizens in October 2017;

Having been granted EUSS should be sufficient to show that we have been living in the UK lawfully, even as students or as someone with sufficient means;

Instead, it feels like on the one hand we are allowed to settle, but then on the other hand when we want to take the step of becoming a British citizen, a significant and unfair roadblock is put in our way;

I understand there are party politics at play, like in any political party - but please can I ask you to support amendment NC36, which I understand is due to be voted on tomorrow.

Take care.

Kind regards

Well done, Nikigio.

Thank have written to my MP today as well.

I hope some more will as it’s already been on the table tomorrow!

Well done everyone, together we stand!

I've just emailed my local MP.

This new hmm 'approach' is ridiculous to honest. HO should have made it clear form the beginning or discarded the requirement for good.

As now there's a precedent of people who were granted citizenship without CSI. The legislation hasn't changed.
So if someone in exactly same circumstances was to apply now as opposed to a year ago they would be rejected because of the timing.
How is that consistent ?

NikiGio wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:08 pm

I understand there are party politics at play, like in any political party - but please can I ask you to support amendment NC36, which I understand is due to be voted on tomorrow.

It is encouraging that people are engaging with the parliamentary process rather than just whingeing on these forums in long threads. But set your expectations as to what will likely occur.

Parliamentary time in the Commons is rationed and limited. Not all amendments are called by the Speaker, who has the final decision on which amendments will be voted on. So, though amendment NC36 (the NC stands for New Clause) is down on the Order Paper, it is possible that it may not be called. And if it is not called, it will not be voted upon.

It seems that that amendment has been signed only by SNP MPs. So the chances of it being called are reduced (the ones signed by the Leader of the Opposition tend to get priority and are more likely to be called).

Then again, even if called, it may fall when there is a vote (remember that the Government has a majority of 80).

The Bill would then go to the Lords, where there is a much higher chance of the amendment being accepted (all amendments in the Lords are discussed and voted on), but the Government can always insist on removing it when it returns to the Commons. Baroness Deech has written an insightful article on how to lobby members of the Lords.

And finally, keep in mind that the Bill still has many stages to pass through (in both Houses) and both Houses have their Summer Recess from the third week of July till the first week of September, which will likely be followed by another four-five week Conference Recess from mid-September to mid-October.

Assuming that the amendment is accepted in both Houses, a very high but not impossible hurdle, the earliest that it would have an impact/become law is about the end of October/beginning of November. And that is the earliest. It can be much later than that.

dogcat wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:46 pm

As now there's a precedent of people who were granted citizenship without CSI. The legislation hasn't changed.
So if someone in exactly same circumstances was to apply now as opposed to a year ago they would be rejected because of the timing.
How is that consistent ?

Yes indeed.
Let’s compare two applicants both been self sufficient with CSI been granted EUSS in May 2019.
One was married could apply straight away = approved, legal resident status.
The second wasn’t married fulfilled requirement of 12 months applied May 2020 = refusal, unlawful resident.

Or two people under the same conditions again. One applied April 2020, the other May 2020. Same background, two different outcomes.

The point is that Home Office clearly hasn’t applied these requirements for 18 months since people could apply with EUSS.
Not heard of ANY refusals, but lots of approvals. Even that thread is full of applicants claiming they would have needed CSI, but been approved. So are in other forums and I also know those who had no problems with CSI.

It appears very unlogical.

Miss A wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:24 pm

Well done everyone, together we stand!

Indeed.

Also this isn’t just about the bill tomorrow.
The campaign doesn’t end there. It’s actually the beginning.

freddiekeller wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:10 am

Responding the user with "dog" in their username, HO explicitly state on their website that intention not to stay in the UK is provable by means of a declaration. They don't say anything about the validity of a retrospective declaration, but that is my best guess as to how they could approve the card

Responding to Frou01, indeed that is the case but I have discovered that I have an EHIC and given that the application form asks for it, I believe it could do less harm than good

To everybody, including Frou01 and the user with "dog" in their username, is an accompanying declaration regarding my intentions not necessary then? The HO guidance that unless the applicant declares that it is not their intention to stay in the UK for the long-term, the validity of an EHIC as CSI is null. However, it is my understanding that if an applicant produces private health insurance by the time their PR or naturalisation is submitted, then the applicant's intentions may very well have been to stay in the UK at the time of the application. The applicant's intentions (might be assumed??) to have been otherwise in the earlier part of the qualifying period when their EHIC was all they had

If anybody can help separate the wheat from the chaff regarding the above, I would be appreciative

Bw,

Martin

I did call Home Office today regarding CSI. I called already on 1st June as I said before.

The lady I spoke to made clear this requirement is from the day the guidance was published. I’ve told her I applied on 2nd May (with the new wording) and she said
twice it does not affect you. She seemed a little bit annoyed as obviously a lot of people call regarding this.

However it’s a little bit different of what you said before that they don’t take it into account at all at the moment.
From what I understood she was saying everyone who applied from mid May has to prove CSI.

Maybe you give them another call too.

Hi all,

If someone can shed light on whether EHIC route for proving CSI can prove difficult owing to the fact that one has to make a declaration that one does not intend to stay in the UK for the long-term, please let me know.

I am seriously befuddled by all of this, but my intuitions tell me that if you get UK private health insurance at the time of making an application, you would have been covered by an EHIC throughout up until the last minute, at which point you could freely change your intentions to staying in the UK long-term without causing your EHIC to stop being a valid form of CSI. Is this right?

I am still unsure whether you have to submit a declaration that you did not intend to stay in the UK in the past if you are using an EHIC to cover past periods of CSI. Is this the case?

Thank you for your consideration,

Freddie

Frou01 wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:38 pm

freddiekeller wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:10 am

Responding the user with "dog" in their username, HO explicitly state on their website that intention not to stay in the UK is provable by means of a declaration. They don't say anything about the validity of a retrospective declaration, but that is my best guess as to how they could approve the card

Responding to Frou01, indeed that is the case but I have discovered that I have an EHIC and given that the application form asks for it, I believe it could do less harm than good

To everybody, including Frou01 and the user with "dog" in their username, is an accompanying declaration regarding my intentions not necessary then? The HO guidance that unless the applicant declares that it is not their intention to stay in the UK for the long-term, the validity of an EHIC as CSI is null. However, it is my understanding that if an applicant produces private health insurance by the time their PR or naturalisation is submitted, then the applicant's intentions may very well have been to stay in the UK at the time of the application. The applicant's intentions (might be assumed??) to have been otherwise in the earlier part of the qualifying period when their EHIC was all they had

If anybody can help separate the wheat from the chaff regarding the above, I would be appreciative

Bw,

Martin

I did call Home Office today regarding CSI. I called already on 1st June as I said before.

The lady I spoke to made clear this requirement is from the day the guidance was published. I’ve told her I applied on 2nd May (with the new wording) and she said
twice it does not affect you. She seemed a little bit annoyed as obviously a lot of people call regarding this.

However it’s a little bit different of what you said before that they don’t take it into account at all at the moment.
From what I understood she was saying everyone who applied from mid May has to prove CSI.

Maybe you give them another call too.

Cheers for this, Frou001, although two other call-centre staff said it wasn't necessary, one didn't know, and one said that it was retrospectively enforceable - which makes sense in light of the fact that it is a change in the recommended interpretation of the law, not a change in the law.

freddiekeller wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:55 pm

Hi all,

If someone can shed light on whether EHIC route for proving CSI can prove difficult owing to the fact that one has to make a declaration that one does not intend to stay in the UK for the long-term, please let me know.

I am seriously befuddled by all of this, but my intuitions tell me that if you get UK private health insurance at the time of making an application, you would have been covered by an EHIC throughout up until the last minute, at which point you could freely change your intentions to staying in the UK long-term without causing your EHIC to stop being a valid form of CSI. Is this right?

I am still unsure whether you have to submit a declaration that you did not intend to stay in the UK in the past if you are using an EHIC to cover past periods of CSI. Is this the case?

Thank you for your consideration,

Freddie

Quoting myself in case this gets overlooked, as my second reply is on another page. Sorry, should have kept both replies within one post.

I don't think intentions are relevant anymore.
The rationale behind EHIC is that you are insured in your home country and will not be a burden on a host country (same as private health insurance). That's at the root of whole CSI business.

Why not just provide a statement from you health authorities (or a form e104)confirming that you were insured for the relevant period of time.

By the way, I have also called HO and was told that CSI wasn't necessary.

Again, I would like to emphasize- it is not the card itself but the fact that you are insured back in your country of nationality.

The card is considered to a short term solution because it is assumed that after long periods of absence you will have lost the access to your national health care (stopped being insured).

freddiekeller wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:58 pm

Frou01 wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:38 pm

freddiekeller wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:10 am

Responding the user with "dog" in their username, HO explicitly state on their website that intention not to stay in the UK is provable by means of a declaration. They don't say anything about the validity of a retrospective declaration, but that is my best guess as to how they could approve the card

Responding to Frou01, indeed that is the case but I have discovered that I have an EHIC and given that the application form asks for it, I believe it could do less harm than good

To everybody, including Frou01 and the user with "dog" in their username, is an accompanying declaration regarding my intentions not necessary then? The HO guidance that unless the applicant declares that it is not their intention to stay in the UK for the long-term, the validity of an EHIC as CSI is null. However, it is my understanding that if an applicant produces private health insurance by the time their PR or naturalisation is submitted, then the applicant's intentions may very well have been to stay in the UK at the time of the application. The applicant's intentions (might be assumed??) to have been otherwise in the earlier part of the qualifying period when their EHIC was all they had

If anybody can help separate the wheat from the chaff regarding the above, I would be appreciative

Bw,

Martin

I did call Home Office today regarding CSI. I called already on 1st June as I said before.

The lady I spoke to made clear this requirement is from the day the guidance was published. I’ve told her I applied on 2nd May (with the new wording) and she said
twice it does not affect you. She seemed a little bit annoyed as obviously a lot of people call regarding this.

However it’s a little bit different of what you said before that they don’t take it into account at all at the moment.
From what I understood she was saying everyone who applied from mid May has to prove CSI.

Maybe you give them another call too.

Cheers for this, Frou001, although two other call-centre staff said it wasn't necessary, one didn't know, and one said that it was retrospectively enforceable - which makes sense in light of the fact that it is a change in the recommended interpretation of the law, not a change in the law.

I can’t quite follow this. So they said CSI wasn’t necessary and then they say they can enforce it retrospectively?

Thank you, dogcat, for sharing your understanding of the issue.

Frou001, four caseworkers that I contacted expressed three different opinions. Taking dogcat's call into account and yours too, it would seem that it is a case where 4 definite yeas, 1 abstention and 1 maybe (it is retrospective) have been cast in favour of approving your case.

To add, my immigration advisor, who works at a relatively well-known immigration law practice, also believes that this is retrospective. As far as I personally understand it, it is most certainly arguable that the new guidance is retrospectively enforceable. This is because guidance is guidance, the law being applied when you submitted your application and after the release of the guidance is the same. However, the prevailing interpretation of the law has changed, which unfortunately probably means that the new interpretation of the guidance could lawfully be applied when reviewing your case. Having said that, I firmly believe that applying the CSI requirement, especially in a retrospective fashion, will only be reserved for cases where the HO would really like to deny BN to an applicant because they have a very unglamorous record, however that is defined, but would find it hard to argue a case against them otherwise.

Frou001, four caseworkers that I contacted expressed three different opinions.

I assume you called the UKVI Helpline? As I understand it the helpline operation is outsourced to a third party provider and the agents are not UKVI case workers, and don't have direct access to case workers or documents. There are also question marks around the quality of advice given over the phone - dating back well before the current controversy.

alterhase58 wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 30, 2020 6:50 pm

Frou001, four caseworkers that I contacted expressed three different opinions.

I assume you called the UKVI Helpline? As I understand it the helpline operation is outsourced to a third party provider and the agents are not UKVI case workers, and don't have direct access to case workers or documents. There are also question marks around the quality of advice given over the phone - dating back well before the current controversy.

Totally get this and I agree.
The man I spoke to seemed to be quite educated on the topic, but again it’s not the Home Office or our caseworker we talk to.

We will all just wait and see.
It’s a good thing we have seen lots of people been approved without csi.
But the uncertainty goes on (and even painful longer because of the backlog).
It will be indeed a matter of discretion.

Well, I phoned Home Office and was told that no longer needed to provide CSI although it did say that would need to provide evidence of CSI on the form, so don't know ...

dogcat wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:04 pm

Well, I phoned Home Office and was told that no longer needed to provide CSI although it did say that would need to provide evidence of CSI on the form, so don't know ...

Just for the case csi will be a topic for you when HO contacts for further evidence in which case another cover letter to explain things is important, write down day time of call and wording.

If the staff who answers calls and questions under an HO number is giving wrong advice and incompetent, then they shouldn’t answer those calls or simply say they cannot say anything and I wouldn’t understand their purpose.
But on both calls they had no problem, no excuses and seemed to be good educated about the requirements.

On the line they make clear it’s not about individual cases and I certainly didn’t discuss my application with them. I simply asked from what date the requirement is in place as I clearly saw lots of people being approved with lack of csi.

Also these calls are recorded and can be used in an applicants favour by tracking date and time.

Does anyone know what is the guidance for period of absences from the UK? With EUSS there is this exception for an absence of "up to 12 months for an important reason, such as work or study". If we have been abroad during this period (e.g. in our home country), but within the 450 days of allowance in the 5-year period, I suppose that we do not need to provide evidence of CSI for this period? Does CSI apply only to periods within the UK?

mike20 wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 02, 2020 6:40 pm

Does CSI apply only to periods within the UK?

Yes. And only if the EEA citizen was exercising treaty rights as a student or as a self-sufficient person.

If the EEA citizen was employed/self-employed/job-seeking while in the UK, then there is no need to prove CSI for those periods.

Frou01 wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:13 pm

Also these calls are recorded and can be used in an applicants favour by tracking date and time.

Don't count on it. The Home Office does not consider itself bound by incorrect advice given by the call center, either verbally/over the phone or in writing (emails/letters). From their point of view, incorrect advice given by a call handler does not change either the law or the policy. And the courts seem to agree with this position (See paragraph 48 of this judgment).

I am trying to find instances of when this has happened in the past on these forums. Applicants on the non-EEA routes, who have dealt with the Home Office throughout their immigration journey, have encountered this quite a lot more than applicants on EEA routes, who don't interface with the Home Office that often.

secret.simon wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 02, 2020 6:49 pm

Frou01 wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:13 pm

Also these calls are recorded and can be used in an applicants favour by tracking date and time.

Don't count on it. The Home Office does not consider itself bound by incorrect advice given by the call center, either verbally/over the phone or in writing (emails/letters). From their point of view, incorrect advice given by a call handler does not change either the law or the policy. And the courts seem to agree with this position (See paragraph 48 of this judgment).

I am trying to find instances of when this has happened in the past on these forums. Applicants on the non-EEA routes, who have dealt with the Home Office throughout their immigration journey, have encountered this quite a lot more than applicants on EEA routes, who don't interface with the Home Office that often.

I understand you might not have good experiences with them.
But like I mentioned before they were correctly updated in the topic. I didn’t have the feeling to talk to incompetent staff.
Also the point is as we can see CSI isn’t considered so far as we have seen here and I have on other places and in my privacy seeing people with a clear lack of CSI, absolutely not exercising treaty rights being successful these days still.
They never said to me it’s not important. It’s clearly a requirement from the time the guidance been updated.
So they are saying what is indeed happening so far and what will be about applications after the new guidance we will see in some weeks it few months.