WP complexity

[jilly cooper]

I posted my problem before about how my employment (Company B) has been terminated because of lack of work permit. For way of background, I have been using the same work permit (Company A) from one employer to another (in my case, I used it for Company X and Y) since the beginning of 2005. However, early 2008, I realise that a work permit is non-transferable or should not be used to obtain work for a another employer. And Company A did not submit the form, End of Contract, to the HO (my apology can't remember the correct form). My limited leave to remain is valid till August 2008.

The company that terminated my contract, Company B, applied for my work permit after a thorough discussion. The application was refused for the first time and the HO said they need evidence that the post was advertised. Company B provided the advert but the HO refused the application for the second time as the advert that was given to them was more than 6 months, which is the time frame for the application of work permit after the post has been advertised. The second rejection did not mention anything about Company X and Y. According to the second rejection, the only reason why they are rejecting the application was something to do with the 6-month rule as they cannot justify that what was in demand 6 months ago might still be in demand today.

On their letter, Company B stated that they can't find a suitable EEA resident, they have advertised the post (twice, locally and nationally) and they had informed the HO that I have been working there since last year and Company B wrote to them for the third time. On their third letter, Company B asked the HO if they could waived that 6-month notice as they find me efficient and up for the job and the fact that I have been there since last year. And that if Company B would have known that I need a WP, they are happy to apply one for me.

I was wondering what are the chances that the HO would actually waved such rule. The suggestion actually came from the HO itself and I am getting jittery, nervous and anxious with the result as this might / could affect my whole WP application in the future and my future.

However, my main conern is about waving of the rule. Do you think they will waived it considering that the suggestion actually came from the HO?

Anyone experienced similar case?

Your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.


________________________________

Life is not about what you have. It is about how to make the most out of it.

[dnicky]

Following is not what you would like to hear but unfortunately is the fact.

As much as you are responsible for ensuring that you are entitled to work legally for a employer that you take up the employment with in the UK, so is the employer employing a non-EEA national.
In the existing enviroment and the tough stand HO is taking these days against illegal employment (for both the employee and the employer) it is highly unlikely that HO would be show any lineancy towards your case. On the contrary you would be fortunate in the event of HO not taking any adverse action with regards to your illegal employment (with no valid WP).