Will changing from GTV dependent visa to skilled worker visa reset the ILR clock to zero?

My wife is in the UK as a Global Talent Visa (GTV) dependent since 01 Jan 2021 (BRP valid until 04 July 2022). She has recently obtained a job offer in the private sector here in the UK. Although the GTV dependent visa status grants her permission for full-time paid employment legally in the UK, the potential employer is not willing to employ her on this visa, owing to the relatively short remaining validity period on her BRP.

She has tried explaining to them that she intends to submit a 3-year extension/renewal application for the GTV dependent visa a few days prior to the current expiry date. But the company insists that she switch to an employer-sponsored Skilled Worker Visa for which they will reimburse only the GBP 610 visa fees, but not the Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS) (which alone works out to GBP 1872 for the 3 years) or biometrics appointments.

We are caught in a dilemma now. She had paid GBP 1248 (IHS) + GBP 608 (visa fee) = GBP 1856 for her GTV dependent visa, which will simply be wasted upon switching to the Skilled Worker Visa. She is also concerned about losing the 10 months that she has already been in the UK, which would have otherwise counted towards her 5-year ILR qualifying period.

The question is: Assuming she is willing to take the financial hit now, at least will the time already spent on her GTV dependent visa count towards the 5-year period, when applying for her ILR through the Skilled Worker Route? i.e. will her ILR eligibility date still remain 01 Jan 2026 even after the switch (initial entry in GTV dependent visa was 01 Jan 2021)?

Time spent under a dependant route does not count for ILR under the skilled visa route. Also, her moving to a skilled worker visa ties her immigration status to her employer and removes any flexibility she has under her current visa to change employers in the future. I suggest that she stays under the dependant route

Thanks for the info.

That's tough. At least they should refund the IHS for the overlapping period when switching visa. I don't understand the legality of charging the IHS twice for the same overlapping period. The IHS fee is calculated on a time-basis, and if that time is covered by the IHS paid for a previous visa, there is no logic in charging again.
Going by logic, in an ideal case, they should either refund the IHS paid, or even better, just exclude the overlapping period when doing the new IHS payment when switching visa.

The home office has a track record of losing high-profile cases wherein UK courts outright deem them to be illegal. It is only a matter of time before this double-charging of IHS is brought to the courts, I believe.

IHS is charged based on the length of the visa given to you. Choosing to apply for a totally different visa much earlier is your choice.

Zimba wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:50 pm

IHS is charged based on the length of the visa given to you. Choosing to apply for a totally different visa much earlier is your choice.

Except in this case, it is not quite our choice. The company is forcing our hand.

And as you said, IHS is charged based on the length of the visa given. Charging again for the same period for a different visa category doesn't make sense. As a simplification, it is equivalent to a health insurance company charging premiums twice for covering an individual over the same period. In the US, you can switch into a different visa, but your health insurer will not insist on paying twice.

I am all for fair payment to the NHS for the great service they provide. But charging multiple times to provide health cover the same period is simply unfair.

Anyway, none of us in this forum have powers to change anything, and therefore no use debating it here. But I won't be surprised if there is a court ruling against the home office at some point in the future on this.

Think of the IHS not as health coverage insurance, but as a part of the fees for the decision of an application, which is hypothecated to the NHS. That is likely why it is called a surcharge (an additional charge over and above - sur in French - the base charge or fee).

If you got a three year visa and then changed partway to another visa, you would not get a refund on either the underlying application fee or any applicable surcharge.

anonvtic wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 15, 2021 1:41 pm

The home office has a track record of losing high-profile cases wherein UK courts outright deem them to be illegal. It is only a matter of time before this double-charging of IHS is brought to the courts, I believe.

anonvtic wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 16, 2021 2:09 pm

I won't be surprised if there is a court ruling against the home office at some point in the future on this.

I won't be as sanguine as you are being. Keep in mind that the UK government also wins major cases (such as the one on the Minimum Income Requirement, which went all the way to the Supreme Court) and if it is so minded, some of the ongoing cases do end up in the Supreme Court (such as the one about the fees for the registration of children as British citizens; both the High Court and the Court of Appeal ruled against the government and the case is now before the UKSC).

And if the government is truly determined, it has the ultimate weapon of enshrining the relevant rule into statute (Act of Parliament), which the courts can't overturn.

anonvtic wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 16, 2021 2:09 pm

none of us in this forum have powers to change anything, and therefore no use debating it here.

And that is the healthiest way to approach the situation.

On these forums, we can (or at least, should) try to help people to deal with the rules and laws as they are, rather than dreaming of fantasies.

anonvtic wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 16, 2021 2:09 pm

I am all for fair payment to the NHS for the great service they provide. But charging multiple times to provide health cover the same period is simply unfair.

And some would say the £624 a year to use the NHS without charge, is too cheap. When they ran the consutlation to bring in the NHS contribution, some put they wanted this to be £10,000 a year.

£624 a year is very cheap insurance and exisiting conditions are covered too. Just one overnight stay on a ward for observation would be a bill of over 1k.

Okay. Ultimately, she has let that opportunity go. The company insisted that she needs to switch into the Skilled worker visa category.

This is better for her immigration wise

anonvtic wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:50 pm

The company insisted that she needs to switch into the Skilled worker visa category.

One can see why. Switching her to the Skilled Worker visa gives the company a great amount of control over her future, such as over her ILR application. Not only does she have to complete five years with the company, but also she needs a letter from the company stating that they will need for the foreseeable future.

I agree with Zimba that it may be to her benefit letting that job go, if they insisted on that specific visa in spite of her being free to work in the UK on a GTV dependent visa.

If they are that fussed about switching her to this visa and making her dependent on them, just imagine the office politics after she would have joined.

anonvtic wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:50 pm

Okay. Ultimately, she has let that opportunity go. The company insisted that she needs to switch into the Skilled worker visa category.

She probably dodged a bullet of an unscrupulous employer.

Agree. Especially, given the financial implications of paying again for the IHS & biometrics as well as the reset of the immigration clock (losing nearly 9-10 months already spent as a GTV dependent). They only reimburse the visa application fee.

On the other hand, she is currently a few weeks pregnant, and we would have really appreciated the extra income given the expected increase in our expenses with the arrival of a baby.

Learnt that she can't get statutory maternity pay, nor can she get maternity allowance. Working for this employer might have at least helped her get the maternity allowance.

It is so difficult to convince a recruiter in the UK that she can work legally. A few haven't heard about the GTV visa itself and their online forms don't even have this category! Also, since her BRP expiry date matches mine, the recruiters are very apprehensive of what happens after that. Overall, a tough situation.