- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2
Since one can only get registration certificate after 3 months of initial residence, this page acknowledges that being a job seeker equals being qualified person and doesn't state that one can only be qualified job seeker if he/she have been a worker before for at least one year. Also, this quote clearly implies that one can be a qualified job seeker after being in UK for 3 months. It even puts it more simply - just "looking for work".You don’t need a registration certificate if you:...
- are a ‘qualified person’, ie you’re working, studying, self-employed, self-sufficient or looking for work
Reading these quotes I don't understand why some of you are saying what you're saying. If you're right, maybe I could register with another job agency and exercise treaty right that way?Beyond the initial three month period an EEA national is entitled to remain in the UK as a „qualified person‟ through exercising a Treaty right.
The term „Treaty right‟ refers to the following categories:
Jobseeker
Worker
Self-employed person
Student
Self-sufficient person.
Even if I become a jobseeker, I'm not entitled to benefits, they're only for workers. I didn't look for a job because I thought (seems like a mistake that I've read gov.uk and thought) I could easily just look for a job after 3 months and be qualified. I understand that many people don't have money to be in a country for 3 months, but I did, and now it looks like I'm about to get hurt for that. I have provided a quote from gov.uk which clearly states that "looking for work" equals being qualified (equals not needing a registration certificate). This contradicts the answer by sheraz7. It says "looking for work" and doesn't say "looking for work after you've been a worker for a year". Does it? I wish to be able to trust what I'm reading.PrestonLancs wrote:If that means that regulations are not being followed, then its good. We should not follow such regulations.
We do not want this country to become benefits supermarket destination for EU citizens.
IMHO EU citizens who fail to find a job in 3 months, should be put back on a plane back home.
http://www.cpag.org.uk/content/right-re ... ent-reviewIt is clear from UK case law. that someone who is “taking steps” towards establishing themselves as self employed will have the status of a self-employed person:
R(IS)6/00 held that the crucial factor was ‘whether the person is taking steps towards offering services to the public, or otherwise setting up as a self-employed person’ (para. 31).
TG v SSWP [2009] UKUT 58 (AAC)7 where the claimant had not registered with HMRC, had been setting up the as a self employed interpreter for only 2 months and had at the date of decision failed to make any profit at all- the claimant was still held to be self employed.
Note that the DWP guidance to Local Authorities on HB/CTB implies that to be accepted as a self-employed person they will need to see proof of an actual business that is up and running.8That is incorrect given that the case law indicates that someone who is doing things to set themselves up as self employed has that status.
It is important to note the finding in TG v SSWP [2009] UKUT 58 (AAC) that a failure to register with HMRC for tax purposes did not mean a person could not be self employed (although it might count as evidence that they may not be).
http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/cmmr_u ... 355997.docThe result is that the appeal tribunal erred in law in apparently applying a different interpretation of Directive 73/148. The appeal tribunal apparently considered that the claimant could not have a right of residence until she had actually started teaching someone French. Alternatively the appeal tribunal may have thought that, because the claimant's immediate reason for entering the United Kingdom was not to pursue activities as a self-employed person, but to have her baby here, she was precluded from later being entitled to a right of residence pursuant to the Directive. Both of those approaches are wrong in law.