10 year ILR - rolling 12 month requirement for absences started before Apr 11

[hc1427]

I'm planning to apply for ILR via 10yr long residence this August. I've been out of the UK since this March, and will return in June.

My reading of the new rules is that because this absence started before Apr 11, it would be subject to the old rule of "no more than 184 days in a single leave", rather than the new rule of "no more than 180 days in a 12-month period", even though the absence extends past Apr 11, right? Essentially example 2 on the guidance.

I'm a bit worried because I've been out of the UK a lot in 2023-2024 due to work (but still less than 548 days overall), so I wouldn't meet the new 12-month rolling period rule.

Has anyone had a similar experience and been successfully been granted ILR? It seems since the new rules came into force there's been many cases of case workers interpreting the guidelines inaccurately or contradictingly...

[zimba]

The rules changes are clear that the rolling calculation applies only to periods of absence that started on 11 April 2024 or later

[hc1427]

Thanks, yes I see that as well, but wanted to ask if anyone's had a successful application with this kind of profile.

The new rules and examples also say the 548 limit doesn't apply if your 10 year period extends beyond Apr 11, but in practice it seems this is not necessarily interpreted by caseworkers to be the case, so I was wondering if there might be similar contradictory interpretations around the rolling 12-month rule

[zimba]

Thanks, yes I see that as well, but wanted to ask if anyone's had a successful application with this kind of profile.

The new rules and examples also say the 548 limit doesn't apply if your 10 year period extends beyond Apr 11, but in practice it seems this is not necessarily interpreted by caseworkers to be the case, so I was wondering if there might be similar contradictory interpretations around the rolling 12-month rule

No, they do not seem to be misinterpreting.
What the guide says is being followed despite some thinking there are contradictions regarding the removal of the 548 limit.
See: viewtopic.php?t=346032#p2164221

I gave my view on it too: viewtopic.php?t=346032#p2163683

[thaicharoens]

Thanks, yes I see that as well, but wanted to ask if anyone's had a successful application with this kind of profile.

The new rules and examples also say the 548 limit doesn't apply if your 10 year period extends beyond Apr 11, but in practice it seems this is not necessarily interpreted by caseworkers to be the case, so I was wondering if there might be similar contradictory interpretations around the rolling 12-month rule

No, they do not seem to be misinterpreting.
What the guide says is being followed despite some thinking there are contradictions regarding the removal of the 548 limit.
See: viewtopic.php?t=346032#p2164221

I gave my view on it too: viewtopic.php?t=346032#p2163683

Then again, my application plus a few others are on hold due to them needing to figure it out with the policy team. So I'm still skeptical if the approval was a one off as they haven't confirmed yet.

[hc1427]

Thanks, yes I see that as well, but wanted to ask if anyone's had a successful application with this kind of profile.

The new rules and examples also say the 548 limit doesn't apply if your 10 year period extends beyond Apr 11, but in practice it seems this is not necessarily interpreted by caseworkers to be the case, so I was wondering if there might be similar contradictory interpretations around the rolling 12-month rule

No, they do not seem to be misinterpreting.
What the guide says is being followed despite some thinking there are contradictions regarding the removal of the 548 limit.
See: viewtopic.php?t=346032#p2164221

I gave my view on it too: viewtopic.php?t=346032#p2163683

Then again, my application plus a few others are on hold due to them needing to figure it out with the policy team. So I'm still skeptical if the approval was a one off as they haven't confirmed yet.

Yeah that seems to be what's happening - some are getting through but others have gotten put on hold or rejected, due to differing interpretations by different caseworkers regarding the 548 rule.

I haven't seen any cases of rejections due to the new 12-month rule, but it's not a stretch to think there could be, especially since the guidance doesn't always specify it's for absences that STARTED before apr 11 (sometimes it just says "absences after apr 11" without specifying start time).

[vinny]

I think they are in a muddle.

Are they applying restrictive changes to the rules (e.g. exclude visitors) retroactively and liberal changes (e.g. remove 548 days total absence limits) non-retroactively?

These changes seem to be a mess of inconsistencies?

Hinder simplifying the rules?