Eu national universal credit rejected

Alice_Holt

David_Brent wrote: »

I don't understand why this is required when my wife has been:

are working or self-employed in the UK over three years
Because she is not currently working or job-seeking she has not retained "worker" status.
As I posted earlier she needs a 5 yrs continuous working record to gain permanent right to reside.
"To get a permanent right to reside you must have been legally resident in the UK for a continuous period of at least 5 years. During those 5 years you must have had a 'right to reside'.

Most EEA nationals had a right to reside when they were:
a job-seeker
a worker
self-employed
a former worker who kept their worker status..."

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/coming-from-abroad-and-claiming-benefits-the-habitual-residence-test/the-habitual-residence-test-an-introduction/what-is-the-habitual-residence-test-EWSNI/

My wife is a former worker has evidence provided payslips
She above.
Look at the last link I supplied for details of retaining worker status when a former worker.
For instance If she were temporarily ill she would be able to retain worker status

My wife is the primary carer of children who themselves has the right to reside,
The children have to be in education. This right is derived from the child and its right to education.
And look at the last link I supplied for details - "However, you will only have a derivative right to reside as the primary carer of the child of an EEA worker when the child starts primary education at around age five. If the child is in nursery or pre-school you won't have the right to reside on this basis."

My wife is a family member of someone with the right to reside.
This applies to EEA nationals, not to British citizens.
Look at the last link I supplied for details - "You may have the right to reside and not have to satisfy the remaining conditions of the HRT if you're a family member of an EEA national who themselves has the right to reside because they:
are a worker..."

.

If she returned to the workplace she would be a "worker" and pass the RtR test. Given the age of the child, this could be (I think) a part time job.

Get advice from your local CAB. It is very complex.

OhWow

David_Brent wrote: »

my wife is married to me we have two young kids and have bills etc we need to cover, I was born here she wasn't but she has been living here working here paying taxes..

There is no "married to a citizen of that EEA country qualified person" and as an EEA citizen using treaty rights, she must follow the EEA Regs continuously to have a right to reside in the UK.



Look at this quidance for Home Office staff and keep up to date with any changes that come in, to avoid her resetting her "5 years to PR" clock to zero again.


"This document explains how UK Visas and Immigration assesses if an European Economic Area (EEA) national is a qualified person."
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/european-economic-area-nationals-qualified-persons


Have a read and see if she has retained worker rights for a short while.

OhWow

Alice_Holt wrote: »

If she returned to the workplace she would be a "worker" and pass the RtR test. Given the age of the child, this could be (I think) a part time job.

I don't think it is anything to do with the age of the child as EU Directive says the work must be "genuine and effective" to be an EU worker in other EEA country and not "marginal and ancillary". I assume the UK were not able to bring in a worker qualified person minimum earnings using Tax Credits as that could be very low weekly earnings, but under present rules they are using the weekly amount required to pay NICs as a rough guide for who is an EEA worker qualified person. £160something a week.


Whether that amount will change now that there will be UC and the 35 hours at NMW, I don't know.


I don't think a parent with a derived right can have UK benefits, you would need to check. On the Brexit Withdrawel Bill, there doesn't seem to be anything offered for those on derived rights to stay in the UK, so you might want to check that too?

David_Brent

Alice_Holt wrote: »

If she returned to the workplace she would be a "worker" and pass the RtR test. Given the age of the child, this could be (I think) a part time job.

Get advice from your local CAB. It is very complex.

When you say a worker is is contradictory to my wifes circumstance, she is not working as we have two kids under 1 & 2 years old and she finished her maternity leave and worked out it was impossible to afford nursery/childcare costs. So the job came to an end. UC even state the job search is not relevant to my wife as she is looking after two young kids under 2 years - so its a catch 22..

UC state my wife needs to have lived and worked here for 5 years - thus the rejection of the application.

Whereas it is stated EU workers - should their residency be questioned should be assessed by the DWP for an HRT for any benfit claims including UC (in which differs completely to that of the rules regulation of the 5 year perm residency in which UC claim. I can't see anywhere the application that my wife was assessed for HRT.

Surely a perm residency i.e. living working for 5 years is completely separate from a Habitual Right to Reside. These are they not two separate things? Why is UC applying the perm residency to my wifes application - when we never claimed in the first place she was a perm resident.


This is the worst benefit system rolled out ever!! My god.

lildoonbuggy

There's a great EU citizen rights group called UKCEN who are excellent and experienced at dealing with residency, rights and legal issues affecting EU citizens residing in the UK. Unfortunately I don't know much about the benefits system but they should be able to determine very quickly if the policy was incorrectly applied. Best of luck.

David_Brent

lildoonbuggy wrote: »

There's a great EU citizen rights group called UKCEN who are excellent and experienced at dealing with residency, rights and legal issues affecting EU citizens residing in the UK. Unfortunately I don't know much about the benefits system but they should be able to determine very quickly if the policy was incorrectly applied. Best of luck.

Thank you for your reply I will contact them asap

PersianCatLady

David_Brent wrote: »

any advise is appreciated as this seems wholly unfair to me and her just because she is from the EU but has been contributing to this country for many many years.

Sorry but four years is not in any shape or form MANY MANY years.

David_Brent

PersianCatLady wrote: »

Sorry but four years is not in any shape or form MANY MANY years.

It's more than two years! If you are simply here to comment to bring bad taste upon this thread then please step away.... and having nothing helpful to say then why comment.bye!

huckster

What is meant by the sentence below from the decision letter ? Was there a process to be gone through, where a British citizen could have registered an application, so their foreign spouse could have obtained same rights as a British citizen.

"There is no evidence to indicate that your husband, who is a British national, has exercised their treaty rights so there are no rights to derive."

OhWow

huckster wrote: »

What is meant by the sentence below from the decision letter ? Was there a process to be gone through, where a British citizen could have registered an application, so their foreign spouse could have obtained same rights as a British citizen.

"There is no evidence to indicate that your husband, who is a British national, has exercised their treaty rights so there are no rights to derive."

Reads like a generic letter. That quote seems to be about those non-EEA citizens using the Surinder Singh European Court of Justice Ruling. The EEA Regualtions for that Ruling means the British partner of a person on the Singh route must now be a an EU qualified person in the UK, for their spouse to have a "right to reside" in the UK.