Comprehensive sickness insurance dilemma (EEA3)

[Doggonit]

I am an EU and Canadian (Commonwealth) citizen, and recently applied for permanent residence via the EEA3 route.

I've been in the UK for more than 6 months of each year for the past 5 years whilst studying full-time at the University of Edinburgh. I completed my studies in May 2009 and returned in September 2009 to work.

Due to an accident resulting in my right-hand flexor tendon being surgically repaired and my hand being splinted, I have been one-handed for the end of September, through October, and will be so until the 20th of November.

So I applied for permanent residence via the EEA3 route, exercising my treaty rights to reside in the UK from September 2004 to May 2009 as a student, and then listing June 2009 - Present as a self-sufficient person (as I'm a job seeker/recuperating from my injury).

I submitted all the required documents but my application was returned as did not "demonstrate evidence of comprehensive sickness insurance".
While I was covered by my father's HMO plan (I'm a US permanent resident as well, and was covered whilst my father worked in the US) between Sept 2004 and August 2008, I was also covered by the NHS (as I was registered with and was entitled to), and by the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan (as a Canadian).

But after further correspondence, I was told that comprehensive sickness insurance (a daft name, if I've ever heard one) has to be private health insurance purchased in the UK for living in the UK and that I had to have had that for the past 5 years.

That's plainly stupid and preposterous. I am allowed to live in, vote in (as a Commonwealth citizen), work in the UK, and pay taxes to boot, but to get my permanent residence I need to have insurance for 5 years that I did not, and do not, and will not need?

Why isn't the double coverage by the NHS and Medicare Canada (even triple, by a US HMO, for most of my presence in the UK) sufficient? I am clearly covered for accidents, as my hand injury was sustained in the UK, and the emergency treatment, surgery, and physiotherapy was and is being covered by the NHS. I have a European Health Insurance Card, and thus am covered throughout the EU. So why the inane demand for private insurance? It's not necessary for me to live, study, or work in the UK, so how is it a fair demand for permanent residence?

Is there any other way I can get permanent residence (which, as I understand it, I need to apply for UK citizenship)? Can I appeal my rejection?

[datuchi]

You said it! The reason why they don't count your NHS cover is that it's paid for by the society (not that you don't contribute or don't deserve it). The purpose behind the legislation is to avoid citizens from other EU states going to other countries and "becoming a burden" to the society.
The fact that you did get the treatment from the NHS is not in your favour. However, there is no obligation on you to disclose this fact! All you have to provide is the evidence of funds and the medical cover.

I only see one way for you to succeed, this is by way of appeal. Your argument is that your cover was over and above of the one required and the UK is wrong to request that you obtain the cover from the UK!

The Directive 2004/38, Article 7(1)(c) mentions comprehensive cover "in the host Member State". UKBA will argue this means "issued in the Member State", you will argue that it means "covers you in the Member state".

In any case, you have to try if you can afford it and if you really need the PR doc. Otherwise, just "let it go".

Good luck.

I am an EU and Canadian (Commonwealth) citizen, and recently applied for permanent residence via the EEA3 route.

I've been in the UK for more than 6 months of each year for the past 5 years whilst studying full-time at the University of Edinburgh. I completed my studies in May 2009 and returned in September 2009 to work.

Due to an accident resulting in my right-hand flexor tendon being surgically repaired and my hand being splinted, I have been one-handed for the end of September, through October, and will be so until the 20th of November.

So I applied for permanent residence via the EEA3 route, exercising my treaty rights to reside in the UK from September 2004 to May 2009 as a student, and then listing June 2009 - Present as a self-sufficient person (as I'm a job seeker/recuperating from my injury).

I submitted all the required documents but my application was returned as did not "demonstrate evidence of comprehensive sickness insurance".
While I was covered by my father's HMO plan (I'm a US permanent resident as well, and was covered whilst my father worked in the US) between Sept 2004 and August 2008, I was also covered by the NHS (as I was registered with and was entitled to), and by the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan (as a Canadian).

But after further correspondence, I was told that comprehensive sickness insurance (a daft name, if I've ever heard one) has to be private health insurance purchased in the UK for living in the UK and that I had to have had that for the past 5 years.

That's plainly stupid and preposterous. I am allowed to live in, vote in (as a Commonwealth citizen), work in the UK, and pay taxes to boot, but to get my permanent residence I need to have insurance for 5 years that I did not, and do not, and will not need?

Why isn't the double coverage by the NHS and Medicare Canada (even triple, by a US HMO, for most of my presence in the UK) sufficient? I am clearly covered for accidents, as my hand injury was sustained in the UK, and the emergency treatment, surgery, and physiotherapy was and is being covered by the NHS. I have a European Health Insurance Card, and thus am covered throughout the EU. So why the inane demand for private insurance? It's not necessary for me to live, study, or work in the UK, so how is it a fair demand for permanent residence?

Is there any other way I can get permanent residence (which, as I understand it, I need to apply for UK citizenship)? Can I appeal my rejection?

[fysicus]

What a strange discussion!?

In Chapter 6 of the ECI (http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitec ... dlaw/ecis/) there is not a word about health insurance!

EU nationals resident in UK are entitled to NHS care and as such comply (automatically) with the requirements of directive 2004/38 regarding health care insurance.

[datuchi]

Strange discussion indeed, especially that our complaimant had his application refused on this very basis.

The fact that there is no mention of the actual words medical insurance in tue caseworker instructions u proided, doesn't mean it is not REALLY ME TIONED! It is mentioned with reference! If u pay close attention to the phrase:"in accordance with the Regulations", and then look those Regulations up, you will see the requirement of medical insurance banged on about constantly! That's clear then re: med insurance, i hope.

Most importantly, it is not viable for the govt to allow people to rely on the NHS to satisfy this requirement. The whole purpose, and i repeat this, behind the legislation is to avail host Member States from unnecessary burdens in the form of foreigners. This doesn't mean you are not entitled to it, but simply that if u r in any category other than a worker or self-employed, u will not be able to exercise treaty rights without PRIVSTE HEALTH INSURANCE.
U will be coverd for your personal purposes and may think u are eligile, but u wouldn't satisfy this requirement when the time comes to apply for confirmation of your right in the host member state. If it's still unclear, please ask!

What a strange discussion!?

In Chapter 6 of the ECI (http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitec ... dlaw/ecis/) there is not a word about health insurance!

EU nationals resident in UK are entitled to NHS care and as such comply (automatically) with the requirements of directive 2004/38 regarding health care insurance.