General discussion on CSI and Settled Status. Big issues for people on the EEA-Applications Routes

[Frou01]

I’m wondering if you I would be able to send it to my former health insurance company?

[poqlpiusefdousngdn]

Would I be also affected if I was unemployed for around 2 weeks between changing jobs?

[AnotherUUID]

Do you have the same N by any chance?? From your experience with this document, having covered the period I need for CSI on Point 7, Is enough??
Thanks a lot!!

I'm afraid I can't confirm this because back then I didn't use S041 / E104 or any of the standardised forms. As I mentioned my case was quite different.

I can't remember exactly what the issue was but my home home country's government (health insurance department) decided to give me a bespoke letter addressed to UKBA on an official template that listed my personal details and confirmed the periods for which I was insured. It had the usual old fashioned bureaucratic stamps and all.

As I say, the interpretations of what constitutes proof of CSI back then were a bit looser. I'm not sure if such a letter will still apply today, which is why the article I linked to suggests using standardised EEA forms. I'm afraid that's the most I can say re the current situation.

And I don't have any place to send that document just yet. But if it's valid as a replacement for CSI, I will include the document in my future Naturalisation application.

With the risk of getting criticised by others, I think it's worth including everything you have and let the caseworkers deal with all the paperwork. But make sure you also justify your inclusion of any paperwork in a cover letter. It will significantly aid caseworkers in understanding what and why was included.

While it's not ideal for caseworkers to get flooded with potentially unnecessary paperwork and I do sympathise with them, at the end of the day it's the government's own fault for not making things clear. It's been nearly 10y since this came up as an issue, it's still not resolved, and CSI is still plaguing applicants.

I would also recommend for all people that are about to apply for naturalisation to get in touch with their MP, get them involved, and get them to raise the issue with the government. At this point, the very least that the government should do is clarify whether any lack of CSI will negatively impact the good character requirement which looks at 10y immigration history as opposed to 5. It's simply not worth gambling the not so insignificant sum of £1,330 just to get rejected on GCR grounds because of CSI. The more pressure people put on MPs the sooner we will see this debated (I hope).

[secret.simon]

The more pressure people put on MPs the sooner we will see this debated (I hope).

Just FYI, but the government controls the time and schedule of the House of Commons. MPs can question the government on specific policies through Select Committees, but the opportunities for backbench and Opposition MPs to organise a debate in the Commons are very limited indeed (20 days are allocated to the Opposition front-bench to choose the topics for debates and 20 days for backbench MPs to bring forward legislation per year. The Backbench Business Committee can also allocate some time for general debates in Westminster Hall).

So don't get your hopes too high about what speaking to MPs can do. They can question the Ministers (generally written answers, but high profile cases may also get a verbal response) on certain cases or policies, but that is broadly it.

[Frou01]

Simon, agreed I won’t put my hopes up on this.
But I did contact my MP to get more information and he wrote to HO. Let’s see what they say.

For the case for not satisfying the criteria of CSI and would lead to a wave of refusals in a few months time it might get a lot of attention and night sound as unfair to the public as to us applicants now.

Remember the Settlement scheme had a fee of £65 in January 2019 and it received a lot of attention and was scrapped within a few weeks.

[AnotherUUID]

The more pressure people put on MPs the sooner we will see this debated (I hope).

Just FYI, but the government controls the time and schedule of the House of Commons. MPs can question the government on specific policies through Select Committees, but the opportunities for backbench and Opposition MPs to organise a debate in the Commons are very limited indeed (20 days are allocated to the Opposition front-bench to choose the topics for debates and 20 days for backbench MPs to bring forward legislation per year. The Backbench Business Committee can also allocate some time for general debates in Westminster Hall).

So don't get your hopes too high about what speaking to MPs can do. They can question the Ministers (generally written answers, but high profile cases may also get a verbal response) on certain cases or policies, but that is broadly it.

I'm aware that opportunities are limited. I'm not suggesting that this is something that can or will be dealt with swiftly (it hasn't in 10y). But if people don't at least semi-regularly raise the issue and express their frustration with the current perpetual state of ambiguity regarding CSI, the issue will be swept under the carpet, as always, and people will be gambling their money away.

Also, if an MP can get at least some clarification of how HO deal with the ambiguity people might be more confident in their applications.

[secret.simon]

I'm aware that opportunities are limited. I'm not suggesting that this is something that can or will be dealt with swiftly (it hasn't in 10y). But if people don't at least semi-regularly raise the issue and express their frustration with the current perpetual state of ambiguity regarding CSI, the issue will be swept under the carpet, as always, and people will be gambling their money away.

Also, if an MP can get at least some clarification of how HO deal with the ambiguity people might be more confident in their applications.

I was just "setting expectations". Some people get rather carried away by their idea of what an MP can do.

[Learning18]

Hi everyone,

I am in the same boat sadly
I applied on the 13th of February 2020 with EU settled scheme + 1 ILR. I still haven't heard back and have only found out about the new updated guidance this morning which saddened me and worried me greatly. When i filled in the form back in Feb, it was different as in I was only asked to provide proof of living in the UK. Now when I fill in the form online it asks for proof of 5 years of qualifying period and the CSI if someone was a student or self sufficient.

I am worried as I have a a year and a 8 months where I was a student with no CSI and don't know if they would apply discretion for something that long.

I have emailed a lawyer and they did say that this updated guidance can apply to me. I have just emailed the MP for my borough.

I honestly think it is unfair for that policy to be applied to anyone that has applied before the date it came out.

Will update you all about my application or what the MP says.

[ValenS]

the form online it asks for proof of 5 years of qualifying period and the CSI

Hello,
is the 5 years proof starting from the citizenship application date?

[Learning18]

the form online it asks for proof of 5 years of qualifying period and the CSI

Hello,
is the 5 years proof starting from the citizenship application date?

That was for the years prior to the application date. So basically 2015 - to the application date.

[jpl]

EEA residents who have had health insurance in their home country and whose home counties have reciprocal agreements with the UK - which is most, if not all EEA counties - can still prove, retrospectively, that they have been insured. Even if they did not have an EHIC. They can request from the relevant authorities in their home countries statements of insurance. It has been suggested that some countries can use EU form S041 (used to be E104) while other countries who have further agreements can even invoke clauses of their respective agreements.

Though as the article you linked to says, the Home Office have been reluctant to accept E104 as evidence of CSI for PR applications. If the Home Office applies the same standard of evidence for citizenship applications with settled status as they do for PR, then a lot of folks with E104's may end up having a hard time.

I was actually caught out by this myself. I had CSI during my time as a student here but lost my EHICs, and my home country only issues E104s as proof of past coverage. When I applied for PR, I included my E104 together with the practice note recommended by the website you linked to. The Home Office ended up giving me PR with a much later deemed date of acquisition than I had expected, and when I wrote to them to ask why, they explained that they didn't consider E104 valid evidence and so had totally disregarded my time here as a student.

I've now applied for citizenship based on settled status instead - I sent in the application after the change to the online form, but before I had read anything about the new guidance. I'm worried that the Home Office will reject my application instinctively because of the E104, just as they seem to do with PR applications. Even if a rejection due to E104 might get overturned in review, as seems to be the case for a lot of PR applications, that extra step would still involve a lot of time and stress.

[secret.simon]

Even if a rejection due to E104 might get overturned in review

There are no review options for naturalisation application, only a reconsideration by the Home Office, which can take months to years (there is no time limit for a reconsideration).

[AnotherUUID]

I was actually caught out by this myself. I had CSI during my time as a student here but lost my EHICs, and my home country only issues E104s as proof of past coverage. When I applied for PR, I included my E104 together with the practice note recommended by the website you linked to. The Home Office ended up giving me PR with a much later deemed date of acquisition than I had expected, and when I wrote to them to ask why, they explained that they didn't consider E104 valid evidence and so had totally disregarded my time here as a student.

I'm sorry to hear that. Indeed, and quite unfortunately, if it's not listed, it may or may not work as the article I linked to also says. There are no guarantees and it would appear there are different outcomes for different people.

I have heard a number of people who have had their EHICs lost, stolen (e.g. in wallet), or simply did not keep some or all of their EHICs. Not having any alternative means to prove they did hold them is ridiculous, especially given how difficult (or impossible) it may be to have them re-issued when outside of the issuing country.

It makes me wonder how caseworkers actually deal with these things and why there's no consistency. And if a degree of discretion is exercised, then on what grounds and to what merit?

[1mic]

This link might be helpful to some on here. Read from Page38. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 7.0ext.pdf

[madalina91]

This link might be helpful to some on here. Read from Page38. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 7.0ext.pdf

This is helpful, thank you!

I wonder if caseworkers will be using this document to establish if the applicant was a qualified person 5 or 3 years before obtaining their Settled Status. The new AN guidance seems to reference the caseworker's guidance for Settled Status applications but that contains zero information about comprehensive sickness insurance.

[uklondonn]

This link might be helpful to some on here. Read from Page38. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 7.0ext.pdf

Jesus... In that document says we can't use the EHIC if we didn't have an intention to live in the UK... So we need to demonstrate that we were going to leave the country or something like that:

"If the applicant provides a valid EHIC as evidence of CSI, it must have been issued by a member state other than the UK, because the member state that issued the card will cover the cost of treatment.
You can only accept the valid EHIC as CSI if the applicant is living in the UK on a temporary basis.
If it is clear from other information they provide they are in the UK temporarily, you do not need to request further information. For example, a student may be undertaking a year long course and have a provisional job offer in their home country.
If it is not clear and they have not provided specific evidence, you must request a statement of intent showing they are in the UK on a temporary basis. The statement must be signed and dated by the applicant and assessed on its individual merits."

There is always a but .

This is soooo frustrating! And doesn't make any sense.

[zcranso]

This link might be helpful to some on here. Read from Page38. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 7.0ext.pdf

Jesus... In that document says we can't use the EHIC if we didn't have an intention to live in the UK... So we need to demonstrate that we were going to leave the country or something like that:

"If the applicant provides a valid EHIC as evidence of CSI, it must have been issued by a member state other than the UK, because the member state that issued the card will cover the cost of treatment.
You can only accept the valid EHIC as CSI if the applicant is living in the UK on a temporary basis.
If it is clear from other information they provide they are in the UK temporarily, you do not need to request further information. For example, a student may be undertaking a year long course and have a provisional job offer in their home country.
If it is not clear and they have not provided specific evidence, you must request a statement of intent showing they are in the UK on a temporary basis. The statement must be signed and dated by the applicant and assessed on its individual merits."

There is always a but .

This is soooo frustrating! And doesn't make any sense.

You are reading it wrong. What you quoted applies to people who want a registration certificate or residence card. In all our cases, we are interested in the section 'Applications for a document certifying permanent residence or a permanent residence card'. There it clearly states that EHIC is acceptable and 'the applicant's intentions for the future are irrelevant'.

It could not be otherwise, since we declare in the citizenship application that we intend to live in the UK in the future.

Hope this clears any confusion!

[uklondonn]

This link might be helpful to some on here. Read from Page38. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 7.0ext.pdf

Jesus... In that document says we can't use the EHIC if we didn't have an intention to live in the UK... So we need to demonstrate that we were going to leave the country or something like that:

"If the applicant provides a valid EHIC as evidence of CSI, it must have been issued by a member state other than the UK, because the member state that issued the card will cover the cost of treatment.
You can only accept the valid EHIC as CSI if the applicant is living in the UK on a temporary basis.
If it is clear from other information they provide they are in the UK temporarily, you do not need to request further information. For example, a student may be undertaking a year long course and have a provisional job offer in their home country.
If it is not clear and they have not provided specific evidence, you must request a statement of intent showing they are in the UK on a temporary basis. The statement must be signed and dated by the applicant and assessed on its individual merits."

There is always a but .

This is soooo frustrating! And doesn't make any sense.

You are reading it wrong. What you quoted applies to people who want a registration certificate or residence card. In all our cases, we are interested in the section 'Applications for a document certifying permanent residence or a permanent residence card'. There it clearly states that EHIC is acceptable and 'the applicant's intentions for the future are irrelevant'.

It could not be otherwise, since we declare in the citizenship application that we intend to live in the UK in the future.

Hope this clears any confusion!

That's a relief! Thanks a lot for the clarification, and sorry about the confusion.

[Lnlan10]

Because there has been no change in the law (indeed, it is a return to the status quo ante as regards the interpretation about the status of EEA citizens and family members without CSI), it is quite likely that the CSI requirement will apply to applications already submitted but not decided.

I have actually spoken with my lawyer. He emailed me today to tell me about the change in the policy and what he said is the following:

1) Yes, applications submitted but not yet decided are affected by this change in the policy.

2) While upsetting, there is still a chance that they might not ask for it; if they do, they might exercise discretion and overlook it.

For those who have EHICs, even with gaps, it is probably a good idea to have them ready in case they ask. They might, or they might not.

That’s a great information. Thank you.

Does it mean your lawyer contacted HO to clarify the information we have?

No, he emailed me when he received the new guidance. I don't think he contacted HO.

[askmeplz82]

Applicants who have settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme are not covered by the transitional arrangements as their settlement status is based on the 5y qualifying period immediately prior to the EU Settlement Scheme application date. Unlike EEA/PR applications, EU Settlement Scheme applicants cannot choose their qualifying period.

They can . I choose 2010 - 2015 and i got settled status

[Richard W]

When EEA citizens are not excercising treaty rights and not lawfully in the UK, I have always wondered where that leaves the employer of their non-EEA citizen family members? The employer won't know that the non-EEA citizen's RC is now invalid/that they are not in the UK lawfully, unless that employee tells them.

Under the Immigration Act 2016 on illegal working, would that mean that the employer is excused from any offence, but that the employee is not? Or is all this covered in the Withdrawal agreement and both employer and empolyee are excused?

The employer will be covered if he has properly recorded the prescribed evidence of a right to work.

The non-EEA family members will probably have been in breach of the law - unless they had CSI and sufficient income that they could be considered self-sufficient. I don't recall any amnesty provisions in the withdrawal agreement.

[Richard W]

For example, withholding relevant information or using deception in immigration applications over the last 10y period will lead to refusal. So, even if the applicant meets the 3 or 5 year "lawful residence" requirement as per BNA 1981 they may be refused because of, say, deception in their dealings with the HO that took place 6-10y ago thereby fail the GCR. Certain breaches of immigration laws over the last 10y can also lead to failure of GCR. The actual definition of being "in breach of immigration laws" is defined in BNA 1981 Section 50A.

Being 'in breach of the immigration laws' does not mean one has broken any of the immigration laws. For example, someone who has never entered the UK (e.g. by being born in the UK) may be in breach of the immigration laws, but he will not have broken any of the immigration laws.

[Frou01]

Because there has been no change in the law (indeed, it is a return to the status quo ante as regards the interpretation about the status of EEA citizens and family members without CSI), it is quite likely that the CSI requirement will apply to applications already submitted but not decided.

I have actually spoken with my lawyer. He emailed me today to tell me about the change in the policy and what he said is the following:

1) Yes, applications submitted but not yet decided are affected by this change in the policy.

2) While upsetting, there is still a chance that they might not ask for it; if they do, they might exercise discretion and overlook it.

For those who have EHICs, even with gaps, it is probably a good idea to have them ready in case they ask. They might, or they might not.

That’s a great information. Thank you.

Does it mean your lawyer contacted HO to clarify the information we have?

No, he emailed me when he received the new guidance. I don't think he contacted HO.

Ok, I understand.
I just wanted to know why he had a rather positive attitude about it?
From reading various posts everywhere which I understand are currently rather based on opinions and speculations and spread some kind of panic and fear he actually stands out which I like and agree with.
Besides I’m not sure if everyone actually has read the guidelines and maybe just the article which is again based on opinion and not an official statement by HO.

The guidelines says for example following:

“If the applicant has indicated on the form that they had CSI. For those who did not have comprehensive sickness insurance, please see below.”

And then comes the section about discretion.

I cannot see a statement saying no CSI = refusal like for example for Permanent Residence.

But it is treated in so many cases that not having CSI is an automatic refusal and now it’s not worth it to apply in such case or if someone has an ongoing application there will be a refusal.
I wish there would be less panic spreading.

A cover letter is now the key and to gather all kind of evidence as EHIC cards etc.

Also I’ve learnt a few people have contacted MPs to get more information.
Hopefully we hear back soon and can work with some official information before we all panic.

[madalina91]

[/quote]
Ok, I understand.
I just wanted to know why he had a rather positive attitude about it?
From reading various posts everywhere which I understand are currently rather based on opinions and speculations and spread some kind of panic and fear he actually stands out which I like and agree with.
Besides I’m not sure if everyone actually has read the guidelines and maybe just the article which is again based on opinion and not an official statement by HO.

The guidelines says for example following:

“If the applicant has indicated on the form that they had CSI. For those who did not have comprehensive sickness insurance, please see below.”

And then comes the section about discretion.

I cannot see a statement saying no CSI = refusal like for example for Permanent Residence.

But it is treated in so many cases that not having CSI is an automatic refusal and now it’s not worth it to apply in such case or if someone has an ongoing application there will be a refusal.
I wish there would be less panic spreading.

A cover letter is now the key and to gather all kind of evidence as EHIC cards etc.

Also I’ve learnt a few people have contacted MPs to get more information.
Hopefully we hear back soon and can work with some official information before we all panic.
[/quote]

I think, just as you say, people on here are panicking and thinking of worst case scenario (I certainly am!). I read the actual AN guidance once it was posted here and while I agree that it does seem like there will not be automatic refusals and there is a chance that the caseworker will apply discretion, people feel uncomfortable putting their trust in a department that is not always transparent and changes their guidance all the time. This understandably makes it difficult for people to trust them.

I remember reading stories of applications being refused in other cases where discretion in the favour of the applicant should have been applied, for example in cases where the applicant was a victim of domestic violence. While these cases may be rare and far between, they do make people panic. Only time will tell how often caseworkers will not exercise discretion in favour of the applicant in relation to CSI. So far this has not been the case, which should make us feel a little bit more positive.

[Frou01]

Ok, I understand.
I just wanted to know why he had a rather positive attitude about it?
From reading various posts everywhere which I understand are currently rather based on opinions and speculations and spread some kind of panic and fear he actually stands out which I like and agree with.
Besides I’m not sure if everyone actually has read the guidelines and maybe just the article which is again based on opinion and not an official statement by HO.

The guidelines says for example following:

“If the applicant has indicated on the form that they had CSI. For those who did not have comprehensive sickness insurance, please see below.”

And then comes the section about discretion.

I cannot see a statement saying no CSI = refusal like for example for Permanent Residence.

But it is treated in so many cases that not having CSI is an automatic refusal and now it’s not worth it to apply in such case or if someone has an ongoing application there will be a refusal.
I wish there would be less panic spreading.

A cover letter is now the key and to gather all kind of evidence as EHIC cards etc.

Also I’ve learnt a few people have contacted MPs to get more information.
Hopefully we hear back soon and can work with some official information before we all panic.
[/quote]

I think, just as you say, people on here are panicking and thinking of worst case scenario (I certainly am!). I read the actual AN guidance once it was posted here and while I agree that it does seem like there will not be automatic refusals and there is a chance that the caseworker will apply discretion, people feel uncomfortable putting their trust in a department that is not always transparent and changes their guidance all the time. This understandably makes it difficult for people to trust them.

I remember reading stories of applications being refused in other cases where discretion in the favour of the applicant should have been applied, for example in cases where the applicant was a victim of domestic violence. While these cases may be rare and far between, they do make people panic. Only time will tell how often caseworkers will not exercise discretion in favour of the applicant in relation to CSI. So far this has not been the case, which should make us feel a little bit more positive.
[/quote]

I totally agree with you.
There’s no trust.
Changes are ok, but they should be announced like all requirements and rules with notice saying from next year this and that will change. Same with fees, they announce it in advance and people have time to make up their mind. Changing something inbetween in absolute unacceptable and unfair!

Regarding discretion: I’ve seen a lot people posting refusals because they have been absent from the UK 3/5 years ago. While others were just asked by the caseworker to choose another date and then been approved.
Also regarding referees: people go out of their way to make sure to find the suitable person, take it it extremely serious everything about the declarations is accurate and then referees are hardly ever contacted.
It sometimes makes it difficult for me to understand the way applications are handled.