Unsuccessful applications

Danjaggy69 wrote:Thank you, it all makes sense, I am really angry with myself and looking at the HO site for EEA national, there are 2 kind of mention on the “blue card” and I see where i went wrong...quite confusing I must admit, and that card was is issued for EEA nationals after having been here 5 years...a bit unfair i guess however, administrations and rules are rules. thank you for your great knowledge and clarity.

Have messaged secret.simon to have a look at your post so hopefully when he is online, he will offered some valuable advice too.

CR001's advice is spot-on.

Your first port of call should be your old passports to see if there is an ILR stamp or vignette in them. If you do have such a stamp, you may be home scot-free and the discussion below should not affect you (unless you have been away from the UK for two years).

From your description, you submitted a Residence Certificate, the outcome of an EEA(QP) application. That card certifies that you were an EEA citizen exercising treaty rights as of the date of the application.

What you need for naturalisation is a DCPR, a Document Certifying Permament Residence. To get that, you need to submit an EEA(PR) form, along with proof of five continuous years of working (in your case). The oldest five years that you can prove would be the best.

Here is an image I found online that may help.



If you notice, in the vignette on the right of the image, you will notice the words "Registration Certificate". If that is the kind of document that you submitted, it was the wrong document and the naturalisation application must fail.

However, if you had an identical blue card, but with the words "Document Certifying Permanent Residence", then the Home Office has made a mistake, not you and you should get naturalisation.

This is what the vignette on a blue card for a DCPR would look like.



So, if you look at the blue card that you have, what does the vignette look like? The first example or the second example?

Slightly off-topic; Santa Claus/Saint Nicholas would likely have been issued a DCPR through Mrs Claus, whos is likely an EEA (Norwegian??) citizen. St. Nick of course has a Canadian postal address - Santa Claus, North Pole, Canada, H0H 0H0 (it is an actual postal address).

secret.simon wrote:CR001's advice is spot-on.

Your first port of call should be your old passports to see if there is an ILR stamp or vignette in them. If you do have such a stamp, you may be home scot-free and the discussion below should not affect you (unless you have been away from the UK for two years).

From your description, you submitted a Residence Certificate, the outcome of an EEA(QP) application. That card certifies that you were an EEA citizen exercising treaty rights as of the date of the application.

What you need for naturalisation is a DCPR, a Document Certifying Permament Residence. To get that, you need to submit an EEA(PR) form, along with proof of five continuous years of working (in your case). The oldest five years that you can prove would be the best.

Here is an image I found online that may help.



If you notice, in the vignette on the right of the image, you will notice the words "Registration Certificate". If that is the kind of document that you submitted, it was the wrong document and the naturalisation application must fail.

However, if you had an identical blue card, but with the words "Document Certifying Permanent Residence", then the Home Office has made a mistake, not you and you should get naturalisation.

This is what the vignette on a blue card for a DCPR would look like.



So, if you look at the blue card that you have, what does the vignette look like? The first example or the second example?

Slightly off-topic; Santa Claus/Saint Nicholas would likely have been issued a DCPR through Mrs Claus, whos is likely an EEA (Norwegian??) citizen. St. Nick of course has a Canadian postal address - Santa Claus, North Pole, Canada, H0H 0H0 (it is an actual postal address).

Yes, it does all makes sense now and you are 100% right, of course...my card does only mention Registration Certificate....
Really frustrating from my part...thank you so much for the clear example, I hope my case will help others...

I have just redone the new application for the correct card online and will start again the entire process for BC using of the council services as soon as I receive my new card and the correct vignette on it...I am collating my P60 for the last 15 years now....

It would make so much sense if the HO could keep my file open until I send them the correct doc, instead of me redone everything...but unlikely i guess...as long as I do not need to re do all the tests, that’s ok i guess...

thank you for your clear advise and help. I should have done that long time ago!

You do not need to redo the English and LITUK tests. Just resubmit the application form with the correct evidence and DCPR (and a fresh fee). You should be successful. Bonne Chance and the best of British

Did you use the council NCS when you submitted your earlier application? Did they not catch such an elementary mistake?

Hi,

I'm new to this blog.

Have a question on behalf of those EU nationals applying for BC who have been driving their cars on EU plates (obviously having regular EU MOT's and valid EU insurance) for significantly longer period than legally allowed 6 moths.

Can such circumstance - if found and confirmed by HO - constitute a ground of refusal of BC app?

I can imagine that one of the possible ways for HO to actually find out applicant's number plate is when they check absences (in and out dates, although I'm not sure whether HO does such checks ), and Dover comes up as an entry point. As they can at this point immediately realize that applicant has a car, next thing they can do is to check DVLA only to find out that the person is no on the system, which in turn should give them enough clue that the applicant is driving car not registered in the UK.

Would they have then an access to a ferry booking details which would give them the person's number plate?

hlodryk wrote:Hi,

I'm new to this blog.

Have a question on behalf of those EU nationals applying for BC who have been driving their cars on EU plates (obviously having regular EU MOT's and valid EU insurance) for significantly longer period than legally allowed 6 moths.

Can such circumstance - if found and confirmed by HO - constitute a ground of refusal of BC app?

I can imagine that one of the possible ways for HO to actually find out applicant's number plate is when they check absences (in and out dates, although I'm not sure whether HO does such checks ), and Dover comes up as an entry point. As they can at this point immediately realize that applicant has a car, next thing they can do is to check DVLA only to find out that the person is no on the system, which in turn should give them enough clue that the applicant is driving car not registered in the UK.

Would they have then an access to a ferry booking details which would give them the person's number plate?

Hi

The HO don't do the particular check you describe for entries and exits.

The.Watcher wrote:How many people are going / have been affected by the new good character requirements like section 9.7. & has anybody heard of any reconsiderations that have been successful?

9.7 Evasion of immigration control
The decision maker will normally refuse an application if within the 10 years
preceding the application the person has not been compliant with immigration
requirements, including but not limited to having:
a. failed to report
b. failed to comply with any conditions imposed under the Immigration Acts
c. been detected working in the UK without permission

Hi, it may seem an old post, but am curious to know some facts pls.
What immigration offence did you actually got refused on for your BC?

Did u apply thru ILR or PR?

smallpie wrote:

The.Watcher wrote:How many people are going / have been affected by the new good character requirements like section 9.7. & has anybody heard of any reconsiderations that have been successful?

9.7 Evasion of immigration control
The decision maker will normally refuse an application if within the 10 years
preceding the application the person has not been compliant with immigration
requirements, including but not limited to having:
a. failed to report
b. failed to comply with any conditions imposed under the Immigration Acts
c. been detected working in the UK without permission

Hi, it may seem an old post, but am curious to know some facts pls.
What immigration offence did you actually got refused on for your BC?

Did u apply thru ILR or PR?

This user got BC in Oct 2015 through refugee status. The bit you quote is usually breaching immigration rules, ie working full time or more than 20 hours pw as a Student or contracting on Tier 2 General, overstaying etc for example.

astonished wrote:

hlodryk wrote:Hi,

I'm new to this blog.

Have a question on behalf of those EU nationals applying for BC who have been driving their cars on EU plates (obviously having regular EU MOT's and valid EU insurance) for significantly longer period than legally allowed 6 moths.

Can such circumstance - if found and confirmed by HO - constitute a ground of refusal of BC app?

I can imagine that one of the possible ways for HO to actually find out applicant's number plate is when they check absences (in and out dates, although I'm not sure whether HO does such checks ), and Dover comes up as an entry point. As they can at this point immediately realize that applicant has a car, next thing they can do is to check DVLA only to find out that the person is no on the system, which in turn should give them enough clue that the applicant is driving car not registered in the UK.

Would they have then an access to a ferry booking details which would give them the person's number plate?

Hi

The HO don't do the particular check you describe for entries and exits.

Hi,

Thanks for info.
But what if HO detects in some other way that the applicant may have a car, and subsequent DVLA check gives them hint that the guy is probably driving EU registered car. Would that fact make it more difficult for them to meet good character requirement?

CR001 wrote:

smallpie wrote:

The.Watcher wrote:How many people are going / have been affected by the new good character requirements like section 9.7. & has anybody heard of any reconsiderations that have been successful?

9.7 Evasion of immigration control
The decision maker will normally refuse an application if within the 10 years
preceding the application the person has not been compliant with immigration
requirements, including but not limited to having:
a. failed to report
b. failed to comply with any conditions imposed under the Immigration Acts
c. been detected working in the UK without permission

Hi, it may seem an old post, but am curious to know some facts pls.
What immigration offence did you actually got refused on for your BC?

Did u apply thru ILR or PR?

This user got BC in Oct 2015 through refugee status. The bit you quote is usually breaching immigration rules, ie working full time or more than 20 hours pw as a Student or contracting on Tier 2 General, overstaying etc for example.

Thanks for the response.
Can being overstayed in the past attracts refusal to a PR holder tho?

As I mostly read refusal on here, with ILR holder.

And for PR Holder, the qualifying period Is the 6yrs rite? ( 5 on Rc + 1 on PR).
Or do they put into account one's previous immigration status prior the 6yrs immigration status?

Because on the questionaire during NCS, it was asked " if since arriving in the UK, have you breach immigration rules"?
( in my case YES).
Overstayed for upto one year before acquiring EU family member status.

1. An EEA(PR) holder can previously have "overstayed" if they were not an EEA national at the time, they had leave to remain, and they remained in the country once that leave expired. So the answer is: yes. UKVI will take into account the previous 10 years, so will look beyond the qualifying residence period now.

2. The qualifying period is always five years (unless you are married to a British citizen) under s.6(1) BNA and Schedule 1. Only this period will be taken into account by UKVI. Under some circumstances, it is possible for an EEA national to obtain PR after two or three years, but the majority it takes five years, at which point you become free from immigration time restrictions. You must hold that status for a minimum of twelve months.

3. Although the published Nationality Instructions quoted above have not been updated, UKVI will now generally regard residence of an EEA national in the UK without exercising Treaty rights as unlawful and going against the good character requirement. This includes prior overstayers, or people who have not had comprehensive sickness insurance as a student or self-sufficient person, for example. UKVI will look at the preceding ten year period in deciding whether there were immigration breaches. See the EEA Caseworker Guidance at https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ent-rights pp. 34 et seq.

4. An immigration breach in the ten year period is not in and of itself conclusive that an application should be refused. The caseworker must consider whether the breach goes to good character, although the rather strict application of the comprehensive sickness insurance requirement suggests that the default position will be that a breach will bar naturalisation within those ten years.

hlodryk wrote:

astonished wrote:

hlodryk wrote:Hi,

I'm new to this blog.

Have a question on behalf of those EU nationals applying for BC who have been driving their cars on EU plates (obviously having regular EU MOT's and valid EU insurance) for significantly longer period than legally allowed 6 moths.

Can such circumstance - if found and confirmed by HO - constitute a ground of refusal of BC app?

I can imagine that one of the possible ways for HO to actually find out applicant's number plate is when they check absences (in and out dates, although I'm not sure whether HO does such checks ), and Dover comes up as an entry point. As they can at this point immediately realize that applicant has a car, next thing they can do is to check DVLA only to find out that the person is no on the system, which in turn should give them enough clue that the applicant is driving car not registered in the UK.

Would they have then an access to a ferry booking details which would give them the person's number plate?

Hi

The HO don't do the particular check you describe for entries and exits.

Hi,

Thanks for info.
But what if HO detects in some other way that the applicant may have a car, and subsequent DVLA check gives them hint that the guy is probably driving EU registered car. Would that fact make it more difficult for them to meet good character requirement?

Well, if UKVI were to become aware of this, then this would pretty obviously be relevant to good character. This is because driving a foreign-registered car in the UK for longer than 6 months amounts to a criminal offence under section 29 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 and, on the facts, quite possible an additional offence under section 47(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Since you are obvs aware that your conduct casts doubt on the good character requirement, you should (1) regularise the status immediately and (2) explain the circumstances on form AN. Whilst it is true that UKVI do not generally conduct entry/exit checks on EEA nationals (such checks are in any event limited to air transportation at present due to advance passenger information provisions), this can always come to light after naturalisation. Note that the Deprivation Screening Team at UKVI quite rigorously pursue deception or non-disclosure-based deprivation proceedings for which there is no statute of limitations, as it were. Always err on the side of caution and make full disclosure. It'd be surprising if you were refused if you make full disclosure and have lawfully registered your vehicle before applying.

TeamAc4 wrote:

hlodryk wrote:

astonished wrote:

hlodryk wrote:Hi,

I'm new to this blog.

Have a question on behalf of those EU nationals applying for BC who have been driving their cars on EU plates (obviously having regular EU MOT's and valid EU insurance) for significantly longer period than legally allowed 6 moths.

Can such circumstance - if found and confirmed by HO - constitute a ground of refusal of BC app?

I can imagine that one of the possible ways for HO to actually find out applicant's number plate is when they check absences (in and out dates, although I'm not sure whether HO does such checks ), and Dover comes up as an entry point. As they can at this point immediately realize that applicant has a car, next thing they can do is to check DVLA only to find out that the person is no on the system, which in turn should give them enough clue that the applicant is driving car not registered in the UK.

Would they have then an access to a ferry booking details which would give them the person's number plate?

Hi

The HO don't do the particular check you describe for entries and exits.

Hi,

Thanks for info.
But what if HO detects in some other way that the applicant may have a car, and subsequent DVLA check gives them hint that the guy is probably driving EU registered car. Would that fact make it more difficult for them to meet good character requirement?

Well, if UKVI were to become aware of this, then this would pretty obviously be relevant to good character. This is because driving a foreign-registered car in the UK for longer than 6 months amounts to a criminal offence under section 29 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 and, on the facts, quite possible an additional offence under section 47(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Since you are obvs aware that your conduct casts doubt on the good character requirement, you should (1) regularise the status immediately and (2) explain the circumstances on form AN. Whilst it is true that UKVI do not generally conduct entry/exit checks on EEA nationals (such checks are in any event limited to air transportation at present due to advance passenger information provisions), this can always come to light after naturalisation. Note that the Deprivation Screening Team at UKVI quite rigorously pursue deception or non-disclosure-based deprivation proceedings for which there is no statute of limitations, as it were. Always err on the side of caution and make full disclosure. It'd be surprising if you were refused if you make full disclosure and have lawfully registered your vehicle before applying.

Thanks for info.

At present moment I drive a car bought and registered in the UK. But in the past I'd had a quite long period of driving an EU registered car (crossing the border in Dover 3-4 times a year, but obviously - on aggregate - exceeding 6 moths). If I am to disclose that fact on AN app it seems that - on the basis of what you said about DS Team "rigorously pursuing deception or non-disclosure-based deprivation proceedings" - there is no way they can approve my application, as it will be clearly interpreted by HO that in the past I'd displayed deceptive approach to the law of the country by breaching the driving/registration regulations and getting away with it. I don't see any clear way out of this hole. I did something for which I wasn't lawfully punished, so to settle the score I would have to possibly disclose all of this to DVLA, wait for them to calculate all my outstanding road tax I had not paid, include all the penalties they would have applied at that time, and then, after receiving that punishment, I could possibly send AN app.... Is this correct?

And apart from this particular case, there is a more general query with regards to the authority given to Deprivation Screening Team. As long as I understood that part of your post correctly - the fact that the deception or non-disclosure-based deprivation proceedings that they pursue are not bound by any time limitations - it sounds like acquired citizenship - as opposite to the one automatically gained at birth - is something that can never be seen as solid and permanent status. The only thing that is permanent about it seems to be the fact that it is at permanent risk of being revoked...

Hi hlodryk

I apologise if the post was confusing.

My reference to "deception and non-disclosure" related only to deception/fraud used in the naturalisation proceeding itself, or in previous immigration applications. It has no direct bearing on the question of whether the applicant is of "good character". This expression is used in Schedule 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981 (the BNA) but unfortunately not defined, so the Home Secretary has issued guidance in the Nationality Instructions (Vol.1, Chapter 18, Annex D, available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... _D_v02.pdf) as to how to apply the "good character" requirement. Clearly, prior conduct, whether or not it led to conviction, is relevant in this assessment. However, where an applicant volunteers information that is relevant to the good character requirement, the applicant has not been convicted/not received a penalty/caution, and has settled their score with the agency (in this case, DVLA), and the matter was only regulatory in nature (as this was), then it is hard to see how the caseworker can conceivably regard such an applicant as not being of good character. In other words, deception is very often a much bigger deal than the underlying offence.

If a relevant fact (again, regardless of whether a conviction occurred or not) is knowingly or recklessly not disclosed in the application, then that qualifies as deception under section 40 of the BNA and is indefinite grounds for deprivation. I hope this clarifies the point I made before.

As for your second point, you've indeed nailed it. As a leading textbook on immigration law puts it, "British citizenship is now less a matter of intrinsic personal identity and more a matter of contingent privilege, which may be removed on the posting of a letter" (Clayton 2016, 99). Having said that, virtually all countries recognise deception as being grounds for deprivation (USA, Canada, Australia, NZ). Some countries, such as Germany, may recognise a time limit or "statute of limitations" outside which deprivation proceedings may no longer occur. The UK and the majority of common law countries know no such time limit. Therefore, always advisable to be open in UKVI applications, not least because they're becoming quite sophisticated and intent on finding deceptive practices, in the current climate. If in doubt, disclose, justify and explain away.

One other point, on which you may want to seek legal advice based on all the facts: s.29 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 is what we call a summary offence. There is a statute of limitations for summary offences in s.127 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980. This means that s.29 would need to be prosecuted within 6 months of the offence, otherwise the prosecution is barred. From what you're saying it seems that you've driven a UK-registered car for a while now, presumably for over six months?

Now, this doesn't change the point I'm making about "coming clean" on the application, but you wouldn't need to worry about being fined because this is now time-barred. But again, you may wish to seek proper advice on this point.

TeamAc4 wrote:Hi hlodryk

I apologise if the post was confusing.

My reference to "deception and non-disclosure" related only to deception/fraud used in the naturalisation proceeding itself, or in previous immigration applications. It has no direct bearing on the question of whether the applicant is of "good character". This expression is used in Schedule 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981 (the BNA) but unfortunately not defined, so the Home Secretary has issued guidance in the Nationality Instructions (Vol.1, Chapter 18, Annex D, available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... _D_v02.pdf) as to how to apply the "good character" requirement. Clearly, prior conduct, whether or not it led to conviction, is relevant in this assessment. However, where an applicant volunteers information that is relevant to the good character requirement, the applicant has not been convicted/not received a penalty/caution, and has settled their score with the agency (in this case, DVLA), and the matter was only regulatory in nature (as this was), then it is hard to see how the caseworker can conceivably regard such an applicant as not being of good character. In other words, deception is very often a much bigger deal than the underlying offence.

If a relevant fact (again, regardless of whether a conviction occurred or not) is knowingly or recklessly not disclosed in the application, then that qualifies as deception under section 40 of the BNA and is indefinite grounds for deprivation. I hope this clarifies the point I made before.

As for your second point, you've indeed nailed it. As a leading textbook on immigration law puts it, "British citizenship is now less a matter of intrinsic personal identity and more a matter of contingent privilege, which may be removed on the posting of a letter" (Clayton 2016, 99). Having said that, virtually all countries recognise deception as being grounds for deprivation (USA, Canada, Australia, NZ). Some countries, such as Germany, may recognise a time limit or "statute of limitations" outside which deprivation proceedings may no longer occur. The UK and the majority of common law countries know no such time limit. Therefore, always advisable to be open in UKVI applications, not least because they're becoming quite sophisticated and intent on finding deceptive practices, in the current climate. If in doubt, disclose, justify and explain away.

Hi,

Thanks, truly appreciate your help.

I understand that "current climate" refers to issues covered by what in US is called homeland security. So, does HO's heightened sophistication and intent apply exclusively to this domain, or some extra fuel also goes into uncovering deception in such areas as driving EU cars?

To be honest, a prospect of reporting myself to DVLA and asking them (not explicitly ob'sly) for penalties for some past episodes of using EU car looks to me like the type of law abiding impulse that you would associate with someone voluntarily reporting to police every incident of breaking speed limit in the area with no speed cameras or police presence (After all, by driving like this you're also breaking the law, aren't you?). Is the good character bar really set so high?

Do you actually know any case where someone was either refused at the AN application stage (for not revealing registration issues) or their naturalisation was cancelled after HO found them deceptive on that same matter?

1. By "current climate" I was referring to the "hostile environment" which is more and more being expanded to cover not just irregular but also legal migration. The HO was a much more relaxed department before the Tories came to office. The good character requirement has been toughened up by Tessy May on numerous occasions (abolition of exclusion of spent offences, extended period of immigration compliance to 10 years, etc.). I really don't think they care about, or would expend any resources on, things like driving EU cars, subject to point 3 below.

2. There is a fundamental difference between the scenarios you cite in your example. Speeding is a road traffic offence - the law recognises that all of us drivers will, in all likelihood, at some point in our lives commit such an offence and this rarely results in a conviction anyway - this is in all but the most egregious cases dealt with by way of fixed penalty. The HO acknowledge this in Chapter 18 Annex D, at para.3.8(c): "In contrast isolated minor incidents such as traffic violations will not normally in themselves indicate that a person is of bad character. However, each application must be considered individually." As a general rule, therefore, minor road traffic incidents are totally irrelevant to good character.

3. The issue about s.29 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 is that it is primarily a taxation, not a road traffic, statute. In other words, non-compliance with s.29 is not a road traffic offence like speeding but an evasion of taxes payable to the exchequer. This is fundamentally different from a speeding offence, and the HO regard tax compliance as integral to good character.

4. As for the reasons on which applications for naturalisation have failed on good character grounds, in view of the tax implications, we have seen applications fail for minor inaccuracies in tax liability where this was not addressed with HMRC at the point of application.

5. As for the reasons on which naturalisation certificates have been revoked (deprivation), the bar is still set relatively high but is being lowered all the time. Where in the past there were hardly any deprivations on deception grounds, as a result of the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration's 2014 Report An Inspection of Nationality Casework, these have been ramped up. Precise numbers are not released.

6. The way deception claims can be brought is by including catch-all questions in the application form. In particular, Q3.13 of form AN which asks "Have you ever engaged in any other activities which might indicate that you may not be considered a person of good character?" can be and has been used to justify refusals on good character grounds in the absence of a conviction.

Thanks,

Yes, points made in 2. and 3. sound pretty logical.

But I'm still tempted to go on with AN without mentioning that whole registration stuff.
If it gets refused, I hope they at least wont revoke(??) my PR card.

On the other hand, if it is successful, what is the likelihood that someone digs it out in the future to trigger deprivation procedure?

And I just wonder whether by discussing this issues here we're not unwittingly pointing HO's attention to these topics.... God knows who is watching....

Hello everyone,
My application for BC has been refused. I'm thinking to complete NR form but need some clarification. Is there a deadline for this ( not much info on HO website) and secondly, do I have to include my passport,biometric card and other documents?

Ella314 wrote:Hello everyone,
My application for BC has been refused. I'm thinking to complete NR form but need some clarification. Is there a deadline for this ( not much info on HO website) and secondly, do I have to include my passport,biometric card and other documents?

What was the reason for refusal?

@ CR001

In 2008 I was granted discretionary leave to remain till 13/04/2011. Then in March 2011 (a month before the deadline) I was advised by my solicitor to apply for ILR on the grounds of long residence. HO refused this application and granted leave to remain on a discretionary basis in November 2012. Finally, after I completed 6 years of DL got my ILR in 2016. After 12months I submitted my BC application in March this year. In their refusal letter they're saying that I was in breach of the Immigration laws from April 2011 - my first DL expired until November 2012 when my second leave was granted. My argument is that I submitted my application well before the deadline and according to section 3c Immigration Act 1971 'your existing immigration status will continue until your application is decided, even if the decision is not made until after the end of your permitted stay.' Apart from this I have no other breaches/criminal convictions and other issues, and even if it was a breach- it was not deliberate.

Did home office sent you a questionnaire for breach and ask you 8 question during that period or they straight way refused you on said based ?
Another thing you are right according to law for 3c immigration rules but unfortunately UKBA didn't considered this point in your case what i think UKBA don't considered 3c in discretionary leaves because its their discretion how they treat you once you didn't apply for extension as they advised in their leave given (discretionary leave) You must had applied extension instead of applying ILR in 2011. Solicitor did try for you but he did not notice that once DLR given and accepted so route will be 6 year no before that, here they may argue this that UKBA again gave you discretionary leave in 2012 when your application refused and there is gap, because its their discretion they can take any where.
Don't worry challenge them and have a good solicitor this time who knows about discretionary leaves, hope you will win this battle from them unless you said in your given questionnaire some thing else.
This my idea not advice but again i am with you , you will win this.because you have strong 3c valid point and it was not deliberate, absolutely you are right.also sorry to hear this silly refusal

As far as I remember they didn't sent anything. Why do you think is better to do it with solicitor? I called HO today, they told me when I complete NR form to include the copy of application submitted in 2011. Thank you for your reply.

One should not relay on Home Office telephone calls , i think solicitor can write better and give them law examples( UKBA ) so i will be better for you and easy for them to understand that they done wrong decision that was only my concern , its your choice how you will deal with them?Also will take less time to considered otherwise will take as much as they can

Ella314 wrote:As far as I remember they didn't sent anything. Why do you think is better to do it with solicitor? I called HO today, they told me when I complete NR form to include the copy of application submitted in 2011. Thank you for your reply.

You don't need a solicitor if you have the copy of the application etc.