BRP - Any idea of possible timelime.

Hi all,

Looking for some direction/help here.

My wife has had an ILR for the past 14 years to remain in the UK. Due to employment purpose,a prospective employer has requested that we provide a BRP.

We have applied for this towards the end of July.

We were informed by the Home Office that this could take up to six months.

Is there nybody on here who has requested the same thing, and just wanted to know how long it had taken you for yours to arrive.

We really need at it as soon as possible - as we need to get it to the employer as soon as possible. Will be very hard to haev wait for six months, so just hoping that there may be some one on here who has had a similar experience.

Just for your information we have tried calling the Home Office - btu they cant provide any firther information.

Thanks in advance for any direction.

You have been advised by the Home Office it can take up to 6 months. That is what the timeframe is. Usually anywhere between 2 months and 6 months.

There is also nothing you can do to speed it up either. All you can do is wait.

The requirement to have a BRP to prove your right to work and rent etc has been in place for many years now.

Thank you for the advice.

Lets hope its nearer to the two months stage.

Be good to see what other peoples experiences have been also.

Thanks

The employer should use the ECS while she's waiting for her brp to arrive.
The only thing he needs is her details and the application reference number.

Yes, we have also gone down the route of ECS.

But they are insistent on obtaining a share code, and we can only provide a share code from having a BRP.

Since April 2022, physical BRP cards are NOT an acceptable form of proof of right to work in the UK. However, an employer must accept a Positive Verification Notice (PVN) obtained via ECS. They should not demand the employee to obtain other things or make up their own requirements. This should be communicated to them and they should be able to justify why a PVN obtained via ECS is not sufficient. Do not let employers to bully you with any arbitrary demand in this regard

The guide from UKVI is clear on this: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... o_Work.pdf

If the employer has not used ECS to verify your wife’s right to work then you should point them to the service. And if they have either refused to use it or have but not accepted the findings then the employer is at fault. It will be the fastest way for all parties to resolve the issue for ECS to be used / accepted.

The issue here is probably the employers belief there is an absolute requirement or compulsion to only have a share code in order to verify right to work. While there are exceptions I doubt many businesses have the knowledge to understand the rules fully. The problem is if the employer says no share code no work, there is very little you can do. It is the employer that sets the standards they wish to employ individuals by and as long is that is not illegal they are entitled to state they want a share code.

I am aware of businesses that insist that U.K. citizen employees must have a valid U.K. passport before they are offered employment and again it is the employer who has stated this as a condition of employment. No different to the share code scenario.

Thanks for the responses guys.

The thing is, this employer due to their own req's have stated no share code via BRP - means they cannot move forward.

We have communicated and supplied all the details they need to do the ECS check, but it is at a stand still.

Evenin my conversations with the governing body- who state similar to what you mentioned.

I was hoping to hear if someone has been in a similar scenario to us - how long its taken them.

Really appreciate the guidance to date,

While employers ultimately will be making the call to hire a person, they cannot discriminate based on their own definition of 'right to work'. You cannot refuse to hire simply because a person failed to satisfy a legal requirement when they clearly have done so but you simply refuse to accept it. They cannot make arbitrary demands in this context as that would be unlawful and could be a form of indirect discrimination.

Here is a paragraph from Code of practice for employers: avoiding unlawful discrimination while preventing illegal working issued by the home office:

You must not discriminate against any individual based upon the type of right to work check carried out. For instance, an individual may decide that they do not want to use an IDSP for digital identity document verification and choose to demonstrate their right to work using a physical document instead. Furthermore, some individuals who hold immigration leave will be able to demonstrate a right to work using the Home Office online service, and others will not. Neither group should be discriminated against or treated less favourably.

I suggest contacting the Equality Advisory Support Service and letting the employer know that you believe they are making unreasonable demands without a legal basis:

Anyone who believes that they have been discriminated against, either directly or indirectly, by an employer or prospective employer on the basis of one or more protected characteristic may bring a complaint before a Tribunal.

It is unlawful to victimise a person because he or she has made or supported a complaint of race discrimination.
If you need expert advice and support on discrimination, you can call the Equality Advisory Support Service (EASS) on 0808 800 0082.

https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights.

If an employer has a recruiting policy that states what documents will be accepted then there is no discrimination. The job offer should state the requirements and in accepting the job offer you accept the terms of the offer. If the employer was to withdraw the offer because you have not been timely in the provision of your share code then that would be a different matter.

Where there is no recruitment policy then I would be inclined to share the view of the previous post. But please bear in mind the code of practice has no validity in law and acts as good practice. If followed it will prevent claims of discrimination. It does not give a prospective employee the absolute right to dictate the recruitment practices of a business.

If the job offer is retracted then your approach to the EASS would have validity.

I beg to differ. If challenged in a tribunal, the employer has no legal basis in which such a demand can be justified. An excuse like 'it is our recruitment policy' will not work. Firstly the requirement under the law only requires employers to obtain documents to ensure 'excusal from penalty'. According to the home office, getting a POV via ECS satisfies that requirement. Secondly, the sole purpose of such a demand is to obtain 'excusal from penalty' in this instance, nothing else. If there was a uniform requirement for all employees to produce a code to get employed, then this demand could be argued as a recruitment policy. However, in this instance, the employer's demand for a specific document to be produced from a prospective employee is only and only intended so that the employer can obtain 'excusal from penalty'. This requirement has already been satisfied via ECS and this is confirmed by the home office but the employer simply does not accept it.

You can see this in the case of D Baker v Abellio London Ltd. The tribunal ruled that the employer demanding a specific document to prove right to work had no legal basis:

Even if the Claimant had been subject to immigration control, section 15(3) does not impose a requirement on an employer to obtain certain documents. It gives the possibility of excusal from penalty if certain documents are obtained from the employee

I also beg to differ - the given case is out of context it was for the dismissal of an individual which is not the case as here, the potential employment of an individual.

If and I keep stating IF the employer was to withdraw their current offer because the share code is not being provided then I would be inclined to rely on the Equality route for redress.

Yes the employer should use the ECS service and as previously stated it is the simplest way forward. It appears they have chosen not to rather than they have and ignored the outcome.

As I have said before an employer at the point of initial employment (this is the important bit) can set the documents they wish to verify / have in hand. If the offer letter states this or in the advert prior then the employer is free to set that standard. You will no doubt want to disagree, and I can fully see the reasoning for doing so, but the onus is with the employer to ensure that the potential employee has the right to work.

Do I think the employer is being pedantic and overly risk adverse, yes. Do I think the case as it stands would get a hearing under the Equality Act - no.