Page 1 of 1

ILR absences above 180 in an yr(cant split) plz share ur exp

Posted: Wed Dec 04, 2013 10:20 pm
by swapmm9
Hi,
I have absences above 180 nearly 240 days in an yr which I cant split into two yrs from the date of application backwards. Reason is medical.

I would like to know what are the chances of success in such case provided we submit evidences? is there anything to decide with PEO place? which PEO is better to apply ? Also are there chances of my application going on hold ?

Please share your experiences if such cases are refused or approved ?

Thanks

Posted: Wed Dec 04, 2013 10:29 pm
by Lucapooka
If you can't split it over two consecutive years, I can confirm nil chance at the PEO and would assume the same by post but wait for more speculation (I say speculation because until someone actually posts their experience that is all we have to go on). The new absence threshold, of 180 in each annual cycle counted retrospectively from the day of application, is very generous but on that basis does appear to be locked into those absolute limits . The older system of 3 months but with varying degrees of discretion based on this or that no longer applies.

Re: ILR absences above 180 in an yr(cant split) plz share ur

Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2013 7:40 am
by UKBALoveStory
swapmm9 wrote:Hi,
I have absences above 180 nearly 240 days in an yr which I cant split into two yrs from the date of application backwards. Reason is medical.

I would like to know what are the chances of success in such case provided we submit evidences? is there anything to decide with PEO place? which PEO is better to apply ? Also are there chances of my application going on hold ?

Please share your experiences if such cases are refused or approved ?

Thanks
One success here

Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2013 8:19 am
by Lucapooka
Yes, but that example clearly states this was comfortably accommodated over 2 consecutive years. The OP has stated he is not able to do this but i am baffled as to why.. Perhaps if he gave a timeline the forum could confirm if this were true.

Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2013 8:39 am
by UKBALoveStory
Lucapooka wrote:Yes, but that example clearly states this was comfortably accommodated over 2 consecutive years.
Incorrect

Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2013 8:43 am
by UKBALoveStory
and one more success here