Immigrationboards.com

A Lithuanian national applied for a registration certificate in 2010 (now redundant, I know, but read on) but UKBA refused to process it cause there were only a couple of months left on the passport's validity.

Because of this, EEA national had to go back to get a new passport, and thus lost some months in which she would have been able to claim Working Tax Credit and other benefits etc.
Now, we want to claim some compensation from UKBA cause they were meant to process the application for Reg Certificate ASAP and they refused it while the passport supplied was still valid. Any point of law which allows them to do this? I really doubt, but wanted to double check.

Thanks in advance!

The EEA regulations only say valid document without referring to time but also says that the certificate must be issued 'immediately on application'. Thus the question whether the passport is still valid for a period of time afterwards is pretty irrelevant, me thinks. I guess that's your point.

The EEA national should really have appealed immediately but have a look into this thread and see if it helps.

Thanks a lot for prompt reply. I also thought they acted illegally, absolutely ridiculous to make the holder of a valid document, albeit only a couple of months', of the fact that it may not be valid by the time they process the application, while the delays are purely of the UKBA's own making.

One other thing I was pondering, could the Lithuanian national rely on Article 25 of the Directive 2004/38 against the HMRC (responsible for Child Benefit and Tax Credits) to say that the possession of that registration certificate was then irrelevant as she attested the fact that she is working by other means? Or it is circular and does not apply to the then A8 nationals?

Thanks for the link!!! BTW

86ti wrote:The EEA regulations only say valid document without referring to time but also says that the certificate must be issued 'immediately on application'. Thus the question whether the passport is still valid for a period of time afterwards is pretty irrelevant, me thinks. I guess that's your point.

The EEA national should really have appealed immediately but have a look into this thread and see if it helps.

guys i do have to write this even if its not related to anything..

just when HIS/HER Lithuanian national was not working what was the partner doing?????

they are thinking to sue HO for some compensation but werent these guys looking for more work insted of making easy money. ATLEAST ONE OF THEM SHOULD BE ON WORK.

i just find it so unfair some one coming from outside UK claming benefit.. sit on his/her mule claming childbenefits and whatever and it goes from money of the people like me who work hard off their asses.

insted of claiming money fro ho better do some work WEAR YOUR WORK SHOES.

i hate these people who wnat to have easy money.

come on guys... HO might have done a mistake so what ... no one is perfect... but insted of making cheap and easy money try to go to job centre and search for jobs... or learn english be a part of british socirty..

because of people claming benefits every foreigner is being looked with the same eye..

shame on guys who want to have easy money...

same for the people who are claming benefits withouth searching work and sitting on their mule no matter what nationality they are

oh and i was jobless for 6 months and so as my partner.. we never claimed a single penny from the governemtn... we searched jobs insted of sueing people....

this country has give u everything what you cant have back in your home.. so show some respect...

Listen here, you muppet, without knowing the facts, don't jump in with the phrases/accusations: "I hate people who" and "sit on her mule". I doubt people from Eastern Europe know about mules more than people you represent...

Anyway, she is a single mother with a dependent child! She works full time and since this is not enough, she has to support herself by topping up her income through CB and Tax Credits etc.

Go troll other posts, you disgust me!

Punjab wrote:guys i do have to write this even if its not related to anything..

just when HIS/HER Lithuanian national was not working what was the partner doing?????

they are thinking to sue HO for some compensation but werent these guys looking for more work insted of making easy money. ATLEAST ONE OF THEM SHOULD BE ON WORK.

i just find it so unfair some one coming from outside UK claming benefit.. sit on his/her mule claming childbenefits and whatever and it goes from money of the people like me who work hard off their asses.

insted of claiming money fro ho better do some work WEAR YOUR WORK SHOES.

i hate these people who wnat to have easy money.

come on guys... HO might have done a mistake so what ... no one is perfect... but insted of making cheap and easy money try to go to job centre and search for jobs... or learn english be a part of british socirty..

because of people claming benefits every foreigner is being looked with the same eye..

shame on guys who want to have easy money...

same for the people who are claming benefits withouth searching work and sitting on their mule no matter what nationality they are

oh and i was jobless for 6 months and so as my partner.. we never claimed a single penny from the governemtn... we searched jobs insted of sueing people....

this country has give u everything what you cant have back in your home.. so show some respect...

You are wasting your time on the wrong people.

Back to the topic: I do not understand what exactly you want with Article 25. The registration certificate is optional and practically speaking a mostly useless document. Her claims to any benefits are not affected by not having it.

mcovet wrote:Listen here, you muppet, without knowing the facts, don't jump in with the phrases/accusations: "I hate people who" and "sit on her mule". I doubt people from Eastern Europe know about mules more than people you represent...

Anyway, she is a single mother with a dependent child! She works full time and since this is not enough, she has to support herself by topping up her income through CB and Tax Credits etc.

Go troll other posts, you disgust me!

[/quote]

NOW WAITE A MIN... WHO IS SITTING ON THE MULE... FIRST THING FIRST
WHO IS A MUPPENT HERE... HAVING A CHILD EVEN IF YOU KNOW YOU CANT AFFORD IT.. WELL THE CASE IS CLEAR.. SHE HAD A BABY TO CLAIM BENEFITS FROM THIS GOVERNMENT... ANOTHER THING AS FAR AS I KNOW FULL TIME MEANS ATLEAST 34+ HOURS A WEEK... IN THIS COUNTRY THE MINIMUM WAGE IS REALLY GOOD AND YOU WONT BE POOR OR DEPENDENT ON THE UK GOVERNMENT IF YOU HAVE A FULL TIME JOB... UNLESS THEY ARE EXPLOITING THE WORKERS... SHE CANT EXPECT TO BE A PEST IN THIS COUNTRY.. WHY CANT SHE GER HER mule BACK TO LITHUANIA AND CLAIM MBENEFITS THERE INSTED OF TAKING A BIG CHUNK OF MONEY OF HARD EARN PEOPLE...

WHY CANT SHE ADJUST HER LIFE SO THAT SHE CAN NOT ONLY SAVE MONEY FOR HERSELF AND HER CHILD BUT ALSO FOR FUTURE.. ONE CAN DRINK WATER INSTED OF ALOCOHL..

I BEEN MARRIED FOR 5 YEARS BUT NO CHILD AS I KNOW I CANT AFFORD IT AND I DONT WANNA BE BURDEN ON THIS GOVERNMENT WHICH HAS GIVEN ME EVERYTHING..

I THINK PEOPLE FROM SOME PARTS OF EUROPE ARE REALLY GOOD IN CLAMING ALL SORT OF BENEFITS. BY ALL MEANS THEY COULD..

SHAME ON THESE PEOPLE
I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY BNP WON 2 SEATS....

I thought in order to qualify for most benefits, applicants normally had to pass the "habitually resident" test.

As residence cards don't give rights ( or take away rights, if you don't have one) then having a residence card does not mean you pass or fail that habitually resident test.

It seems to me two separate issues.

The issue seems to be was the person entitled to benefits. If they were refused benefits that they should have received, then that would be a DWP tribunal issue.

I don't see how UKBA making a mistake about the residence card makes them responsible for lost benefits.

If the DWP wrongly refused them benefits for not having a residence card that's the DWP's mistake.

Also, if the applicant has an expiring passport and has to go abroad to renew it, then that's the foreign national's problem in having a rubbish Embassy system.

You see, HMRC needed to see that she was registered to work in order to be regarded as having a "right to reside". Without it they would not grant the Working Tax Credits. They needed to see that she was working legally and the only way to prove it was to provide the registration certificate.

When she applied for the Reg Certif, UKBA returned the application stating that she didn't provide her "current" passport and 2 photos. She applied end of 2010 and did have a passport valid till end of feb 2011, while they returned it in January 2011 asking for a valid passport.

HMRC are right to regard her as not legally working until she proves it by registering with UKBA (now obsolete)

86ti wrote:You are wasting your time on the wrong people.

Back to the topic: I do not understand what exactly you want with Article 25. The registration certificate is optional and practically speaking a mostly useless document. Her claims to any benefits are not affected by not having it.

You are confusing a residence card and a registration certificate without which you are not allowed to work being an Accession State national.

In order for her then to have exercised her treaty rights as a worker, she needed to register her work or be self-employed (where you don't need to register anyth.) She tried to register her work, but UKBA delayed the processing and refused to process as her passport was about to expire (which was illegal in my view).

nonspecifics wrote:I thought in order to qualify for most benefits, applicants normally had to pass the "habitually resident" test.

As residence cards don't give rights ( or take away rights, if you don't have one) then having a residence card does not mean you pass or fail that habitually resident test.

It seems to me two separate issues.

The issue seems to be was the person entitled to benefits. If they were refused benefits that they should have received, then that would be a DWP tribunal issue.

I don't see how UKBA making a mistake about the residence card makes them responsible for lost benefits, if the DWP wrongly refused them benefits for not having a residence card.(Unless they had to have one to claim benefits - I don't know the law about that.)

non specifics, the embassy can not renew a passport which has a validity of 10 years in most countries and a new passport is required. Further, some embassies take longer and some less to do it. It is not about what the embassy can do but about UKBA incompetence... thanks for your input.

mcovet wrote:HMRC are right to regard her as not legally working until she proves it by registering with UKBA (now obsolete)

An A8 national worker would have had to register with the WRS for the first year. Was she?

yep, spot on! that's what she was trying to do with a valid passport when they returned it.

86ti wrote:

mcovet wrote:HMRC are right to regard her as not legally working until she proves it by registering with UKBA (now obsolete)

An A8 national worker would have had to register with the WRS for the first year. Was she?

That explains it much more clearly to me, so she suffered a consequential loss in benefits following on from a wrong decision by UKBA.

Did she ask her MP about it?

Often when two different departments are involved they try to pass the blame to each other. Govt depts are less willing to try and mess around an MP when they raise the same questions.

MP will probably get involved if they refuse her compensation claim

nonspecifics wrote:That explains it much more clearly to me, so she suffered a consequential loss in benefits following on from a wrong decision by UKBA.

Did she ask her MP about it?

I thought they would be less willing to refuse a compensation claim if it were handled by an MP.

well, we shall see, hope the guide 86ti provided is still live and will just get an address to post the compensation claim to.

nonspecifics wrote:I thought they would be less willing to refuse a compensation claim if it were handled by an MP.

Just wanted to say thanks, as a side note, for you guys, minus trolls, replying so quickly. That's why I love this forum. Keep up the good work!!!

The guide will probably prove most helpful!

I hope you let us know what the UKBA's response is to the complaint and hopefully they do better this time.

On a side issue, if anyone thinks someone's post is irrelevant to the thread, trolling or falsely accusing someone, maybe it's best just to say that only.

Anyone can respond by giving a robust criticism of the post - which they do not agree with, they do not need to use personal insults or putdowns.

In general, I think it's best to avoid getting personal or using insults. That only weakens any discussion and lowers the tone of the forum; and can turn it into a flame war. It can also discourage people from contributing for fear of being personally abused.

It is also against the forum etiquette to hijack a thread to post personal opinions that is not relevant to the thread. There is nothing to stop a person starting a new thread with their views as a new topic of discussion.

I appreciate your input, but I feel that uneducated clowns like him may discourage other people coming forward with their problems in the first place for the fear of being accused left,right and centre of smth ridiculous.

As regards other people contributing to my post, those knowledgeable enough won't get discouraged, and those discouraged may well keep their ideas to themselves, sorry if this sounds blunt, but I really do not need an "etiquette lesson"

P.S. I see you updated your post and added one paragraph. I agree with your last paragraph which addressed my concern, if someone has a problem, they are free to start a new topic. Thanks for understanding

nonspecifics wrote:I hope you let us know what the UKBA's response is to the complaint and hopefully they do better this time.

On a side issue, if you think a someone's post is irrelevant to the thread, trolling or falsely accusing someone, maybe it's best just to say that only.

You gave a robust criticism of the post - which you did not agree with, so you didn't need to use a personal insult.

In general, I think it's best to avoid getting personal or using insults. That only weakens any discussion and lowers the tone of the forum; and can turn it into a flame war. It can also discourage people from contributing for fear of being personally abused.

look i said what i felt...

i understand this form is helping people but only those who really need the help...

but its not fair to take mikky out of u..

this lithuanian person is having a full time job and i belive she is earing more than £600 ( +£600 if she is not paying tax)

she dotn have to live in a palace .. she can rent a room which here in my place can cost up to £200 a month i mean a double room with some bills included.

its not lithuanian lady thing but anyone in the uk british or non british.. who came to this country to sit on their backside, giving birth to babies thought they cant feed them, spending money on stupid stuff and at the end of the day pinching money of the hard working people.

and at the end of the day they want more as they are more greedy
COMPENSATION FROM HO come on man... cant you guys see that this is just too selfish.

don;t you agree with me in this thing... ok you dont have to but its so unfare to claim benefits and then asking to sue those guys who help them to get settle in this country.. insted of being thankful they are just sucking this system..

no matter why so many people dont like people from these parts of europe as they have taken their greed to this beautiful place. call UK

i might be in the bad book of people now but this form was set up by someone to help people who really derve the help not to fulfilms someones greed.

i guees people like these even dont knwo english.. their main motive is just to hjave money money money

I PAY TAX LIKE OTHER PEOPLE AND I AM PISSED OFF ON HEARING THAT THESE PEOPLE NEED A PART OF MY MONEY WHICH THEY DONT DESERVE

I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO GIVE TO RED CROSS, WWF WHICH I ALWAYS DO.. BUT THIS IS BULL@@@ MATE

why cant these people bring their asses back to their own countruies and claim all sort of beefits there.. i bet they too have some pitty for mom who have kids and no money....

and i dont need ur sorry mule thanks.. i never expected.. you should accept feedback...

atleast i am proud that i spoke on this topic and i openly hate people taking miky out of UK system...

if this guy would have said

look ho did a mistake and is there any chance i can complaint and send documents again.. i would have more than happy to give a proper answer.. but this is just too much mate...

mcovet wrote:I appreciate your input, but I feel that uneducated clowns like him may discourage other people coming forward with their problems in the first place for the fear of being accused left,right and centre of smth ridiculous.

[/quote]

INSTED OF SAYING PEOPLE CLOWNS WHY DONT YOU TELL YOUR LUITHUANAIN FRIEND.. STOP F@@@@AROUND AND GET A PROPER JOB BEFORE HAVING CHILDREN AND STOP TAKING TAX PAYER MONEY...

nonspecifics wrote:I hope ...

MATE I UNDERSTAND YOUR LINES.. BUT DO YOU TOO UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEANT.. WE SHOULD HELP THOSE PEOPLE WHO DESERVE IT... THIS GUY CLEARLY OFF HO TO RIP THEM OFF.

DO YOU EVER SEEN GUYS LIKE THESE HAVING LCD TV IN THEIR ROOM WHILE GUYS LIKE ME HAVING A 19INCH OLD STYLE TV......

WELL I HAVE... ITS NOT THE FAULT OF SYSTEM ITS JUST PEOPLE LIKE THESE GRABBING MONEY FROM OUR POCKETS...

mcovet,

If you structure your request for compensation carefully, I suspect you will be successful. It has all of the important parts:
(1) UKBA did something incorrect by refusing to issue the registration certificate because of limited validity of the passport
(2) without the registration certificate, there were downstream financial damages to the applicant
(3) you are requesting that UKBA reimburse you fully for those damages


Let me just double check:
- The passport was valid when sent to UKBA?
- Was it still valid when it was returned to the applicant?
- What exactly did UKBA say in the refusal letter?

Punjab wrote:

nonspecifics wrote:I hope ...

MATE I UNDERSTAND YOUR LINES.. BUT DO YOU TOO UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEANT.. WE SHOULD HELP THOSE PEOPLE WHO DESERVE IT... THIS GUY CLEARLY OFF HO TO RIP THEM OFF.

DO YOU EVER SEEN GUYS LIKE THESE HAVING LCD TV IN THEIR ROOM WHILE GUYS LIKE ME HAVING A 19INCH OLD STYLE TV......

WELL I HAVE... ITS NOT THE FAULT OF SYSTEM ITS JUST PEOPLE LIKE THESE GRABBING MONEY FROM OUR POCKETS...

Punjab you are right and you are wrong
Some people just taking benefits, they never put anything in, and I think thats wrong, but what about people who worked for let say 5-6 years, they paid all taxes, and now they need help because they can't do it any other way?
Some people did work and did't claim a penny from gov, like myself. And now you telling me that I should go back to where I came from if I'm claiming benefits?
You are wrong, you should start looking for people who never worked, never paid taxes and slag them off.
How do you know whats happened to that Lithuanian women? Maybe she split with husband, maybe he died, maybe he left her on her own with a child. I don't think she is lookink after herself more Than after her child.
This what she wanna do now maybe wrong, but claiming benefits if she was contributing in any way is not.