Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

Welcome to immigrationboards.com!

Login Register Do not show

Questions about new 'Statement of Intent' released today

This is the area of this board to discuss the referendum taking place in the UK on 23rd June 2016. Also to discuss the ramifications of the EU-UK deal.

Differing views will be respected. Rudeness to other members will not be welcome.

Moderators: Casa, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, Zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, geriatrix, John, ChetanOjha, archigabe, Administrator

Post Reply
mark83
Newly Registered
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:49 pm
Italy

Questions about new 'Statement of Intent' released today

Post by mark83 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:06 pm

Hi everyone,

I've just had a look over the government's new 'Statement of Intent' about Settled Status, and I had a couple of questions. I realise this is just another preliminary document, so nothing is final yet, but:

Firstly, when discussing absences, it says these must not exceed 6 months in 'any' 12-month period -- this seems to me to be much harsher than the existing PR absence guidelines, which stipulate not more than 6 months within each 12 month period, starting on the date the application is claiming for. If it's really 'any' 12 month period, that would mean that if I were absent for 4 months at the beginning of 2015, and 3 months at the end of 2014, then I would lose continuous residency, even if my qualifying period started in January (say). Am I correct in thinking this might be a major harshening of the rules?

Secondly and relatedly, it seems to me that as much of the system is now supposed to be automated, it falls to applicants to self-enforce some of these rules. For example, if HMRC confirm I have been working for the past 5 years, but unbeknownst to them, my work involved a 7 month absence for business at some point, then the system will presumably automatically give me settled status -- but the onus would be on me to flag up the absence! Presumably not doing so would count as making a fraudulent application? This seems very worrying to me -- there could be lots of people who accidentally break this rule, but the system waves them through (only for them to find at a later date that they are held responsible for it).

Post Reply
cron