We have also just started on a small Charity Worker SPL application. I worked on a large Charitable organisation a couple of years ago – I can already see the challenges of the small charity with regards to policies and procedures.

Jackie

Well done on getting it over and done with – when you say mock questions do you mean the Law Society’s ones that you pay for as opposed to the five in the guidance? I thought the ones in the guidance reflected the actual questions fairly well.

I completely agree – I have no idea if any of my wrong answers were on the two questions that were very obviously unclear. Not a problem in my case because I passed but I would be furious if I failed because of that – but there is also no way of knowing.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/names-aligning-names-on-foreign-documents

Not sure exactly what you’re saying Oliver, but it sounds a bit reckless to me!

‘Regardless of whether the fee waiver request is granted or refused, the applicant will
benefit from 3C leave if:
….
• the permission application that is submitted is the one for which the fee waiver
request was made’.

So, in the HO’s view, 3C leave only continues if the subsequent application is the same as the one intended when the fw application was made.

Interesting to see what the HO would do in Jennifer’s client’s circumstances. Even, as in that case, where there is no deception, the HO could potentially say that 3C leave ends (either at the date the previous leave expired, or the date the ILR application was made). And might there be an issue if the client now pays for their ILR application, having professed to be unable to pay for their prior application (or I’m possibly overthinking that).

That aside I think it is Sonya who mentions that someone has a successful formula for asking the HO to change someone’s reporting method from in person to online.

Please could you send a link or directions as to where on the site I can find the writeup.

Many thanks

Your example does seem plausible. My thinking is that such a case would have to be argued on appeal, to establish that the applicant’s intention genuinely changed and no deception was intended.

A good example of this is say a client who has been on the 10 year parent route since May 2015, but whose current leave expires in March 2025, this discrepancy of not meeting a total 10 years at the end of their current leave is for various reasons such as the covid backlog granting them an extra 18 months of section 3C leave. They can credibly demonstrate that they are eligible for a fee waiver for an extension of their leave on the family route. But what if the application for the fee waiver is still pending in May 2025, when they then become eligible for ILR and wish to vary their application (having now found the funds to do so since ILR does not allow fee waivers; again realistic since ILR application fee is much less than the combined FLR application fee+Immigration Health Surcharge required for an extension). I find it hard to consider this as deception and imagine this is might be a legitimate use of the application system. Would you agree?