No Time Limit (NTL) - purpose, procedure and its future
No Time Limit (commonly known as NTL) is an administrative process that gained wider awareness in light of the rollout of the new digital immigration status (eVisa). For many years this application has served as a remedy to those who have had their indefinite leave to enter or remain status (also known as “settlement”) lost, stolen or expired. With the introduction of an eVisa, those who are unable to convert their “settled” status to the digital format due to lack of a valid Biometric Residence Permit (commonly known as a BRP) card, should lodge an NTL application to get the ILR converted to the digital format.
Historically, those who have their “settled” status endorsed in an old passport or hold the status in the form of a legacy document, could convert it to a BRP to evidence the right to work or rent in the UK or to facilitate travel. As a procedure went, the Home Office required the applicant to provide evidence of UK residency since being granted the status and to confirm that the applicant has not left the UK for more than 2 consecutive years at any point in time. This became an issue for those, who were granted the ILR status decades ago or who cannot evidence the residency (e.g. due to unemployment).
On the 11th of October 2024, the Home Office held a webinar session on the NTL applications, during which they confirmed that if the applicant can provide evidence of holding indefinite leave and has not lost it by being absent from the UK for 2 consecutive years, no evidence of UK residency should be requested. The application form will be simplified to streamline the process. The current processing time is around 3 months.
The question was posed as to what approach the Home Office will take when receiving applications where there was more than a 2-year absence during the COVID pandemic but there was no break in UK residency since. Such applications, as confirmed by the Home Office, will be decided on a case-by-case basis. As a reminder, since 6 July 2018, those who have been absent from the UK for 2 consecutive years and whose ordinary residence isn’t in the UK, must apply for entry clearance as a returning resident.
The Home Office also confirmed that there is no immediate need to apply for NTL but there will be benefits in doing so. In light of the hostile environment, it is yet to be seen whether ILR status holders (otherwise than in digital format) will experience any issues as of the 1st of January 2025, especially when travelling abroad, however, it seems that the whole purpose of digitalising the immigration status is to stop accepting paper documents sooner rather than later. Having said that, the Home Office has confirmed that Right of Abode (ROA) holders, who usually have their passport endorsed with an ROA vignette, will not be able to convert the status to the digital format at any time soon.
With BRP cards going out of circulation at the end of October 2024, NTL applicants will be able to create an eVisa account as a part of the NTL application process. Those who lost BRP recently but still have a record of its number, can create an eVisa account using the BRP number without going through the NTL process.
Our immigration team is well-versed in the NTL process. Do not hesitate to reach out for assistance.
This article is provided for general information only. It is not intended to be and cannot be relied upon as legal advice or otherwise. If you would like to discuss any of the matters covered in this article, please contact us using the contact form or email us on reception@cnsolicitors.com
How to challenge refusals by reconsideration
Under the UK Immigration Law, the right to challenge the Home Office’s decision to refuse a visa application, in most cases, takes the form of an Administrative Review or an Appeal. However, in certain circumstances, for example, in a nationality, “transfer of conditions” or “No Time Limit” applications, such right is not granted. Such refusals are best to be challenged in the form of a reconsideration request.
The Home Office is not legally required to reconsider its decision but may do so in certain circumstances. The reconsideration request is reviewed by a senior caseworker of the same grade as the one who made the original decision, but not by the same person.
When preparing the reconsideration request, attention should be given to the facts of the case, which may have been overlooked by the original caseworker, and the documents that were submitted with the original application. The new evidence or information will not be accepted at the reconsideration stage. To aid the arguments at the reconsideration, it is advisable to request a full copy of the applicant’s UK Immigration file, which, in most cases, would shed light on the decision-making process and reasons for the refusal.
The reconsideration request is sent by post and attracts the Home Office fee. The processing time can be lengthy, with nationality cases taking approximately one year to conclude.
If the reconsideration request is not successful and the original decision to refuse the application is upheld, the next remedy is the pre-action protocol (PAP) letter followed by, if necessary, the Judicial Review (JR) application.
Our immigration team is not new to the reconsideration request procedure. We have successfully represented clients in nationality cases and helped to amend the period of limited leave to remain granted in error. Do not hesitate to reach out for assistance.
This article is provided for general information only. It is not intended to be and cannot be relied upon as legal advice or otherwise. If you would like to discuss any of the matters covered in this article, please contact us using the contact form or email us on reception@cnsolicitors.com
The 20% VAT on Private School Fees: Legal and Financial Implications for Families
The UK government is considering introducing a 20% VAT on private school fees next year, which has sparked significant debate. While the policy aims to raise revenue and address disparities between private and state education, it also raises important legal and financial concerns.
This article will explore potential financial strategies for families with non-domiciled (non-dom) status in response to the proposed VAT, such as utilising overseas trusts or relying on third-party payments to mitigate the impact. It will also address the plan's legal challenges, including concerns related to human rights and discrimination claims and the additional financial burden it could impose on families with special needs.
Financial Strategies to Mitigate VAT
- Utilising Overseas Trusts:
- Non-dom families often set up overseas trusts to manage their finances, including paying for school fees. However, if the trust's income is deemed UK-based, it could still be subject to VAT. It's essential to seek proper advice and structure these arrangements carefully to avoid potential issues.
- Third-Party Payments:
- Some domiciled families consider having grandparents or relatives living abroad pay the school fees directly. However, UK tax law can still apply if the payment is seen as originating from UK-based income or if it needs to be structured correctly. Non-dom families must navigate these regulations carefully to prevent unintended tax consequences.
- Legal Changes:
- Tax rules for non-doms continually evolve, mainly as governments aim to close perceived tax loopholes. Non-dom families should stay informed about their financial planning and seek guidance to protect their interests as new regulations arise.
The proposed 20% VAT on private school fees presents financial and legal challenges for non-domiciled (non-dom) families. While certain strategies can help mitigate the impact, they must be carefully managed to ensure compliance with UK tax laws.
Despite the financial strategies prepared for the incoming VAT on private school fees, the plan still needs to overcome significant legal hurdles. For example, in 2008, Tony Blair's Labour government considered taxing private school fees but encountered substantial obstacles, primarily due to concerns about infringing on the right to education, as protected by Article 2 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The new government now confronts similar challenges as it moves forward with its proposal.
If the government implements a 20% VAT on private school fees, families might argue that this tax unfairly limits their children's ability to choose private education. Critics contend that taxing private school fees could make it harder for middle-class families to afford private education, thereby restricting their children's options. Parents who cannot absorb a 20% increase in one year may effectively be denied the right to choose and forced into state schools. This is particularly concerning for families with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), as imposing VAT on private school fees could drive SEND children out of private education, adding extra financial burdens on their families and impacting the support these children require. However, this argument may face challenges in court, as state education remains available for children with special needs.
Although the government stated that children with an Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP)—a legal document outlining a child or young person's special needs—would be exempt from VAT, the lengthy application process raises significant concerns about access to support.
The plan to implement a 20% VAT on private school education seeks to generate additional revenue for public services. However, non-domiciled families may need to explore financial strategies, such as utilising overseas trusts or third-party payments, to mitigate the effects of this tax, as it could significantly impact their ability to afford private schooling. The proposed VAT plan may also jeopardise the support available for children with special educational needs, increasing financial burdens for many families. This potential impact underscores the necessity for a thorough examination of the proposal. It is crucial that the government carefully considers the implications of the VAT on family choice and access to quality education for all children.