Interpretation of "having been employed in the United Kingdom for at least one year"

[rooibos]

For the purpose of obtaining a DCPR and with reference to:

- Universal Credit guidance (see C1392 p. 17) and
- The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (reg 6(2)(b)),

how should the fragment "having been employed in the United Kingdom for at least one year" be interpreted?

Is that "one year" an uninterrupted period or can one join periods of employments?

And does "one year" mean 365 days? For example, if one has worked continuously from, let's say, late November to early November the year later, would that make one year or not?

I'm aware that the HO and the DWP may give different interpretations of the same rule. I'll appreciate your opinion on either or both of the aspects involved.

Thanks.

[crazydaz]

are you self-employed? full-time? part-time? had your own LTD?

Option 1. Employed full-time/part-time/ self-employed for the full 1 year e.g. January till January - that would be the best. Nothing to explain, just show employment contract etc.

Option 2. Employed Jan-Feb - Job 1, then March - off work, April-July - Job 2, July-January - 3rd Job. just write a cover letter explaining the gaps between employment. And show that you were self-sufficient during that break time e.g. show bank statements that you had enough money etc.etc.

[rooibos]

Thanks crazydaz but this doesn't really address my question.

[secret.simon]

I have looked up the Interpretation Act 1978, the interpretation section within the EEA Regulations and the Immigration Act 1971 and there is no definition of a year given in any of them.

From the tenor of the statement, I would imagine that it is a continuous year, though not necessarily a continuous job (i.e. you should be able to join jobs where you left one job to start another immediately afterwards).

For the purpose of most UK immigration rules, a month is defined as 30 days, so logically, a year would be 360 days. Or if you are being paid weekly, 52 weeks.

I am going by the grammatically generally excepted interpretation of the text, not necessarily a legal one.

[Obie]

One year in this context will be the anniversary of the date you first started working in the UK.

That does not mean only period when you were physically employed. A period of jobseeking following involuntary unemployment having worked for a certain period, or period when you were unwell are all added to the one year.

[rooibos]

One year in this context will be the anniversary of the date you first started working in the UK.

That does not mean only period when you were physically employed. A period of jobseeking following involuntary unemployment having worked for a certain period, or period when you were unwell are all added to the one year.

So, for the sake of clarity. Imagine a 6 months working period, followed by two month's jobseeking, then 7 months working again.

Would this fulfil the "for at least one year" rule under The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (reg 6(2)(b))?

[rooibos]

With reference to either the 2006 or the revised 2016 EEA regulations, article 6:

(2)
A person who is no longer working shall not cease to be treated as a worker for the purpose
of paragraph (1)(b) if—
(a)
he is temporarily unable to work as the result of an illness or accident;

would a brief period on Employment and Support Allowance-IB (one month), soon after an employment period, be considered as "temporarily unable to work as the result of an illness or accident" and therefore allowing to retain worker status?

Thanks.

[Obie]

One year in this context will be the anniversary of the date you first started working in the UK.

That does not mean only period when you were physically employed. A period of jobseeking following involuntary unemployment having worked for a certain period, or period when you were unwell are all added to the one year.

So, for the sake of clarity. Imagine a 6 months working period, followed by two month's jobseeking, then 7 months working again.

Would this fulfil the "for at least one year" rule under The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (reg 6(2)(b))?

I believe i was half asleep when i posted my view. But the 12 months in question has to be period in actual employment. I was in a bit of a muddle between regulation 5(2) and 5(3) which deals with worker status being held as opposed to being in employment.

[secret.simon]

But the 12 months in question has to be period in actual employment.

The OP's original question was whether the 12 months of actual employment have to be continuous or can they be disjointed?

[Obie]

Will i believe that question appears to have been answered. It has to be a continuous period when a person is undertaking employment activity with a contract of employment or an employee/employer relationship. The confusion was in relation to whether the person has to be in physical employment relationship or it suffices that he hold a worker status. I have clarified that an employer /employee relationship has to be in existence.

If a person has permitted absence like maternity leave, sick leave, or a bank staff, they will be okay, but if the person became involuntarily unemployed, they will not qualify under that provision, even though they may still retain the status of worker .

[rooibos]

With reference to either the 2006 or the revised 2016 EEA regulations, article 6:

(2)
A person who is no longer working shall not cease to be treated as a worker for the purpose
of paragraph (1)(b) if—
(a)
he is temporarily unable to work as the result of an illness or accident;

would a brief period on Employment and Support Allowance-IB (one month), soon after an employment period, be considered as "temporarily unable to work as the result of an illness or accident" and therefore allowing to retain worker status?

Thanks.

I'm not sure why mods have conflated this post of mine under an existing thread? This is a completely different question! Could you please put this post under a brand new thread? This doesn't really help anyone.

[secret.simon]

The two threads were sufficiently similar and related to the same definitions of law (the definition and retention of worker status under the EEA Regulations). They were merged to ensure that anybody responding to either query was aware of the advice that was already given.

[rooibos]

The two threads were sufficiently similar and related to the same definitions of law (the definition and retention of worker status under the EEA Regulations). They were merged to ensure that anybody responding to either query was aware of the advice that was already given.

Well, if that's the case, what's the answer to my question?