Problem in getting company letter for ILR

Hello to All

I am eligible for ILR. My Company is not giving me letter sponsoring my application for ILR. Do any one have solution of my problem.

Why are they not giving you the letter ?

IS there any specific reason ?

Ravi, in a sense I don't think your current employer is sponsoring you for ILR.

All you need from them is a "To Whom It May Concern" letter, confirming that you work for them, you are employed as (job title), you have worked for them since (date) and that you earn £x pa..

That is not them sponsoring you, it is them merely confirming certain facts. Will they issue such a letter?

My company use to give letter. But few of my colleague changed job after getting PR. Now my company made a police of not give confirmation letter to anyone.

how long the ILR application processing takes. Will the ILR official check with my company about it. Had anyone got ILR with 'To whom so ever'
letter.

As John said no one needs to sponser u for ILR.All u need to do is take a letter as specified by john that should be okay.For ILR if u go in-person it takes 2-3 hours i guess.

But u need to take a appointment before.

Looking at the form SET(O), at page 15 of 19 of the PDF, note 7B reads :-

If you are applying as a work permit holder, evidence from your employer confirming that your employment with them is continuing.

That is, it does not actually specify that you need a letter. It merely specifies "evidence".

So what do others think, would evidence including all available forms P60, and also payslips from the current tax year, be acceptable to IND as evidence of the employment?

it's a common practice of employees quitting their jobs when they get their PR.. most of the cases are where the employees join the companies clients.

The companies invests a lot of money to get the employee to the UK and after 4 yrs they still see them as an asset to the company. if the person leaves the company and find another job in UK they feel ditched and have to go through the whole trouble of training the new candidate once again.

Also the fact that they loose revenue from the client because it's employees have now joined their clients.

Now with the new rules kicking in companies are more reluctant to give PR related letters to their employees

There was one case where an employee forged a letter on the companies letter head and HO phoned the company to check if the letter was genuine.. the chap was sent back by the company the same week...

the company knows that you have complete 4 yrs and will be cautious to give you any letter

HC395 wrote:134. Indefinite leave to remain may be granted, on application, to a person admitted as a work permit holder provided:

<SNIP>; and

(iii) he is still required for the employment in question, as certified by his employer.

Policy/ operational instructions likewise require evidence that applicant "is still engaged in same employment". IMHO and as evidenced by HO practice the only document satisfying said requirements is an upto date employer letter.

So what do others think, would evidence including all available forms P60, and also payslips from the current tax year, be acceptable to IND as evidence of the employment?

I think the P60 with payslips from current tax year is fine.But the payslip from the current month is the most imp evidence in this case.If I were "ravi" i would take a appoinment between 25-30 of the current month and take the latest payslip(most companies in uk issue a payslip between 20-25 everymonth.

Also I would request my employer to give a letter stating that its a company policy not to give the letter for ILR through e-mail.If they dont agree for this also I will take a print of that e-mail as a proof. with all the evidences John has mentioned.


Olisun

The companies invests a lot of money to get the employee to the UK and after 4 yrs they still see them as an asset to the company. if the person leaves the company and find another job in UK they feel ditched and have to go through the whole trouble of training the new candidate once again.

I do not agree with this.I bet no company will spend a penny if there is no profit for them i say if they spend for ex: £100 on a employee the profit for them is £1000 ( min ).
A simple example is any client will select a company that can provide a quality solution with less budget.The same way its the employers responsibity to make sure his employees
are satisfied.If not people move on for a better work place.Ofcouse the employer will loose revenue and at least then they will realise that employee satisfaction is what they should look at.And they should be more competitive.

In my openion the companies who are not issuing letters just for this reason are not behaving professionally.

P60's (Tax Office issued anyway not by employer) and payslips are evidence of historic remuneration not conclusive evidence of future/ongoing employment - this is the crux of the HO 'employer letter' requirement.

I bet no company will spend a penny if there is no profit for them <== correct, if the company did not see any profit in it's employee then the employeed (WP holder) would be sent back but since they see a profit in him they don't want to loose him

I agree with Kayalami. An up to date letter would be desireable. I also think an employment contract with the expiration date extending at least a few months into the future, accompanying with the 3 most recent payslips, would probably also do the trick.
I also think that companies that withold letters are despicable, and that they are exploiting their employees. There is no justification for that.
Joseph

also your luck may depend on which caseworker looks at your case

P60's (Tax Office issued anyway not by employer)

Not so, the P60 is an end-of-year document issued by the employer, certifying the Pay, Tax and NI for the year to 5th April just ended. It is not issued by the Inland Revenue.

I think the comment in this thread about getting an email saying it is not company policy to issue a letter confirming employment is a great idea. After all such an email would actually give confirmation that the person still actually works for the company.

So if the employer will not issue the letter, which clearly must still be the preferred option, if possible then supply instead :-

• all P60s issued by that employer
• all payslips for the current tax year, that is, from April onwards
• if possible an email from the company saying they don't issue letters confirming employment
• give an open invitation to IND to phone you at work, where of course any such phone call will confirm that you still work there

What I don't think we should do permit for one moment an employer to hold an employee ransom over this matter.

if possible an email from the company saying they don't issue letters confirming employment <== if the company is not going to issue any letter do you think they will give in writing that they don't issue letters for ILR???

Also from such an email it does not guarantee the continuation of the employment

correct me if i am wrong..

John wrote:
Quote:
P60's (Tax Office issued anyway not by employer)


Not so, the P60 is an end-of-year document issued by the employer, certifying the Pay, Tax and NI for the year to 5th April just ended. It is not issued by the Inland Revenue.

My understanding is that an empoyer works off a PAYE system as set up by the IR (various tables). Deductions to include NI are forwarded by the employer to the IR regularly. The IR review payments made over a tax yr and these recorded on P60 tables again issued by IR i.e. the employer is an agent of the IR so technically the P60 is IR issued but employer delivered. Nevertheless not an issue worth getting hot under the collar for on semantics.

I think the comment in this thread about getting an email saying it is not company policy to issue a letter confirming employment is a great idea. After all such an email would actually give confirmation that the person still actually works for the company.

IMHO complex legal interpretation of e-mail correspondence vis a vis disclaimers on footnotes (to the effect that such does not constitute a legally binding document unless otherwise stated) makes this a non starter.

John wrote:So if the employer will not issue the letter, which clearly must still be the preferred option, if possible then supply instead :- all P60s issued by that employer
all payslips for the current tax year, that is, from April onwards

Historic documents. You may be applying for ILR a week after your job ended - how do these documents verify this is not the case?

John wrote:if possible an email from the company saying they don't issue letters confirming employment

See my comment re- email.

John wrote:give an open invitation to IND to phone you at work, where of course any such phone call will confirm that you still work there

An oral conversation vis a vis immigration applications as per immigration acts, rules, regulations and operational policy have no effect of replacing a required document merely confirming its authenticity.

John wrote:What I don't think we should do permit for one moment an employer to hold an employee ransom over this matter.

This delves into areas of employment law. Such requires that an employer has defined details in writing issued to him/her in relation to a contract of employment. I am not aware of said legislation compelling an employer to issue anything beyond that though it is best practice to have an appropriate policy in place for the issuance of correspondence on the matter of ongoing employment.

To cut the long story short, all you need is written "evidence" that your company is intentionally not issuing a letter confirming your employment.

But at the same time, they WANT to employ you but not give you the "freedom" to change jobs.

I would email them or officially write to them CCing the Home Office as well. They are obliged to produce such a letter if they want to continue to employ you. Its immoral for them to not do so.

Modern day slavery!!!!!!!!!

they WANT to employ you but not give you the "freedom" to change jobs.

Doesn't this place the employer in a difficult position. They can only employ the person if they have valid permission to work .... and that permission will expire if not renewed in some way.

To ease that renewal process the employer needs to supply a letter confirming continuation of employment, otherwise there is a danger at a certain date that the employer will not be able to continue to employ the person.

They are obliged to produce such a letter if they want to continue to employ you. <== who says so??

currently the employee is not working illegally, right ? the company has provided WP for him

I would email them or officially write to them CCing the Home Office as well. <== do you know what the implications of this will be ?

It is really very easy. A Whomsoever is enough - I have 100s of friends none of whose employer was ever contacted by HO. They will contact only in suspicious cases I think - e.g. WP expires next month, gaps in employement or other apparent complications.

Just get a letter for rental, banking purpose etc.

if the original posted has not already contacted his company for a letter for ILR then it will be easy for him to get such a letter

otherwise like i said before the company might get cautious

I think they are obliged to produce such a letter on request. All I can say that the company has to be quite unprofessional to not issue one.

Yes you can't force them to issue such a letter but surely they should be able to oblige if all you ask for is a letter to confirm that your employment is continuing.

Of course you can't do much if you are dealing with immoral characters like in this case.

Modern day slavery!!!!!! Things one has to go thru to get that freedom.

Also, its none of their business to ask what its for. You want a letter to confirm employment, you should get it unless they want to sack you!

Also, its none of their business to ask what its for. <== i don't think so...the letter can be used for anything

one of the fortune 1000 companies with whom i was working for as a contractor refused to give me a reference letter on the company's letter head as they clamined it was against the company's policy, which i think is fair enough...

like i said no company is obliged to give any letter of reference unless they know why it's for... whether you call it modern day slavery or whatever, the company wants to retain the employee and ready to process wp for the employee and i don't think the company is doing anything wrong in that.. now it's up to the employee to decide what to do..

PS: we have been arguing amongst ourselves but the original thread started has still not posted after that...

Yes thats true:) Well I hope it all works out for him.

I must confess the thought did cross my mind i.e. what if the company for whatever reason didn't co-operate with the letter.