Question: Isn't the example wrong? The first sentence seems to contradict the second. If someone was present on the 20/3/2012 but *NOT* on the 21/3/2012, and application is received 20/3/2017, shouldn't he be OK?You must have been physically present in the UK on the day 5 years before the application is received by the Home Office.
For example, if your application is received on 20/3/2017, you should have been physically present in the UK on 21/3/2012.
Why I am asking:
I have an NCS appointment to submit my application on the 23 of May.
However, 5 years ago, I took a small trip from the UK to EU. I left the UK on the 24/5 and returned on the 26/5.
I mentioned this while booking the NCS appointment, but the NCS officer said this was fine, since on the 23rd I was in the UK and on the morning of the 24th I was in the UK as well. Assuming the HO receives my application on the 24th, I would agree with the NCS officer that I should be fine. But the "example" above allows for alternative explations (e.g. if HO receives application on the 24th, the example seems to require that I should have been in the UK on the 25th, which I wasn't).
Thoughts? Should I be looking at rebooking the NCS appointment? I would normally trust the NCS officer, but it is known in this forum that the Home Office may at times take different views than NCS.
