General discussion on CSI and Settled Status. Big issues for people on the EEA-Applications Routes

[beaujam90]

Has nothing to do with my question. That law firm isn’t Home Office and it’s again an opinion same like in articles.
Besides lots of people just got approved who would have been refused if I would believe any kind of these articles and opinions.

Again my question is from what day the new requirement
starts? Did anyone heard back from their MP or Home Office to confirm the date?

Were you a student during your qualifying years ? When did you arrive to the UK ?

2012.
No I haven’t been a student. I have been financially supported for awhile which has reason I will at least try to explain to my caseworker. But before and afterwards
I have been in full time employment.

Thanks for your reply.
Since you've arrived in the UK in 2012, If you have been working for 5 years continuously and haven't left the country for more than 2 continuous years, you will be 100% fine.

Exemple 1:

If you worked from 01/01/2012 until 31/12/2016 and then lived with your partner who supported you, you have acquired permanent residence and don't need CSI cover.

Exemple 2:

if you lived with your partner from 01/01/2012 until 31/12/2013 then worked from 01/01/ 2014 until 31/12/2016 then have been supported by your partner again, then you only need CSI from 01/01/ 2012 until 31/12/2013 to have acquired permanent residence.


If you did vocational training or any training you won't need CSI for those months. Check to see if you took any courses during those days.

[beaujam90]

First of all, congratulations to everyone who have gotten their citizenship applications approved!

Besides lots of people just got approved who would have been refused if I would believe any kind of these articles and opinions.

Again my question is from what day the new requirement starts? Did anyone heard back from their MP or Home Office to confirm the date?

Based on what the Home Office have said it seems they're arguing that CSI has always been a requirement for citizenship, and that they're just clarifying this requirement. Following from that logic, there would be no first date from which the new requirements apply - because they have "always" applied.

It's possible the caseworkers are exercising a larger degree of discretion for applications that were handed in before the new sections on EU Settlement Scheme and CSI were added to the guidance. If that's the case, I do hope the Home Office will be willing to look past the CSI requirement also for future citizenship applications.

I’m in the situation where I applied two weeks before the new guidance, but my documents requirement changed exactly that day mentioning CSI.
I can see from my download the day before the wording was still the old one.
I completed my application in January, but had to wait to submit the application on the day I had Settled Status for full 12 months, which is their requirement.
I think I have been extremely unlucky with the timing.

In that case can anyone advice me if I already should explain in my cover letter why I didn’t have CSI or rather wait until they would require the documents?

If you had you Settled status say 23/01/2019 you should have applied for BC on 23/01/2020

[Frou01]

First of all, congratulations to everyone who have gotten their citizenship applications approved!

Besides lots of people just got approved who would have been refused if I would believe any kind of these articles and opinions.

Again my question is from what day the new requirement starts? Did anyone heard back from their MP or Home Office to confirm the date?

Based on what the Home Office have said it seems they're arguing that CSI has always been a requirement for citizenship, and that they're just clarifying this requirement. Following from that logic, there would be no first date from which the new requirements apply - because they have "always" applied.

It's possible the caseworkers are exercising a larger degree of discretion for applications that were handed in before the new sections on EU Settlement Scheme and CSI were added to the guidance. If that's the case, I do hope the Home Office will be willing to look past the CSI requirement also for future citizenship applications.

I’m in the situation where I applied two weeks before the new guidance, but my documents requirement changed exactly that day mentioning CSI.
I can see from my download the day before the wording was still the old one.
I completed my application in January, but had to wait to submit the application on the day I had Settled Status for full 12 months, which is their requirement.
I think I have been extremely unlucky with the timing.

In that case can anyone advice me if I already should explain in my cover letter why I didn’t have CSI or rather wait until they would require the documents?

If you had you Settled status say 23/01/2019 you should have applied for BC on 23/01/2020

Thank you for your kind reply and examples.

I received Settled Status on 1st May 2019 and could only apply beginning May.


Do you have an example for the case someone has been an Au Pair or a carer?

[Frou01]

I understand the argument could be this has always been a requirement. But how do they explain numerous of applications being approved from 2018 until now with Settled Status and without CSI requirement?

So all what I would have need to do is to apply a day earlier than I was allowed to do and CSI wouldn’t be a problem. That doesn’t seem to be fair.
There’s nothing I can do to get CSI backdated or change anything about some of my qualifying years.

[beaujam90]

First of all, congratulations to everyone who have gotten their citizenship applications approved!



Based on what the Home Office have said it seems they're arguing that CSI has always been a requirement for citizenship, and that they're just clarifying this requirement. Following from that logic, there would be no first date from which the new requirements apply - because they have "always" applied.

It's possible the caseworkers are exercising a larger degree of discretion for applications that were handed in before the new sections on EU Settlement Scheme and CSI were added to the guidance. If that's the case, I do hope the Home Office will be willing to look past the CSI requirement also for future citizenship applications.

I’m in the situation where I applied two weeks before the new guidance, but my documents requirement changed exactly that day mentioning CSI.
I can see from my download the day before the wording was still the old one.
I completed my application in January, but had to wait to submit the application on the day I had Settled Status for full 12 months, which is their requirement.
I think I have been extremely unlucky with the timing.

In that case can anyone advice me if I already should explain in my cover letter why I didn’t have CSI or rather wait until they would require the documents?

If you had you Settled status say 23/01/2019 you should have applied for BC on 23/01/2020

Thank you for your kind reply and examples.

I received Settled Status on 1st May 2019 and could only apply beginning May.


Do you have an example for the case someone has been an Au Pair or a carer?

You employment must be genuine and effective. If you had a contract with the family when you were working as au-pair there could be a chance that that work counts as exercising TR.
I have found this :

''''' Work can be part-time, short-term, casual or seasonal and still allow a person to meet the definition (see the Court of Appeal case Mohamed Barry v The London Borough of Southwark [2008] EWCA Civ 1440 at para 28) and it has been held that two students who worked as part time waiters in restaurants for less than 20 hours a week during their studies, and an au pair who worked between 15 and 25 hours a week, could meet the definition of worker (see R (on the application of Ezgi Payir, Burhan Akyuz, and Birol Ozturk) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 24 January 2008 (C-294/06))''''


I also pasted this for you:
The decision regarding whether work is 'genuine and effective' is based on European case law, and is assessed on a case-by-case basis.

The decision maker should consider the following:

Whether the work was regular or intermittent (regular work will be favoured)
The period of employment (in general longer periods would be favoured. However a short period of work with long hours that was terminated unexpectedly might also be perceived favourably)
The intended period of employment at the outset (if the work was intended to be long term, but was terminated by the employer unexpectedly and/or the worker became unwell unexpectedly this would be taken into consideration)
The number of hours
The level of earnings
Voluntary work does not qualify. ‘Cash-in-hand’ work might qualify in certain circumstances if there is evidence of the work taking place (e.g. payslips, some kind of work agreement). ‘Zero hour’ contracts will be assessed individually.

If you have not earned an average of example, £183 (in 2020/21) per week over 3 months, but you think your work or self-employment should be considered 'genuine and effective' you may need specialist help to put your case forward.

[Stefan Piatek]

Type: First Child passport
From: UK
Method: online

Date of Online Application: 01/02/2020
Date Identity Verified: 03/02/2020
Date Documents Sent: 03/02/2020
Documents delivered to: HMPO Belfast
Date Documents Received: 06/02/2020
Application being processed: 13/02/2020
Application Approved: pending
Passport Printed and Sent: pending
Date Passport Received: pending
Passport Colour: pending
Date of Return of Documents: pending

Other documents was REQUESTED to show the mother of Applicant was exercising her treaty rights which was provided.
14/05/2020, proof of sufficient funds, comprehensive medical insurance, Valid European Health insurance card (EHIC) was requested but yet to be provided. Any one with similar experience.

Hello,
I found this post in the British Passport application processing timelines (only) topic. I believe, that this is a very dangerous situation and the CSI may be the new Pandora box and cause a scandal similar to Windrush. In the letter I have received from Home Office when I received my settled status it said that: If a child is born to you while you have settled status, they will be a British citizen automatically at birth. Therefore, if someone has settled status, they should not be asked to provide any additional documentation for their children to receive citizenship. I am not sure, why they would ask those additional documents? Do you think it could lead to the settled status being revoked in some cases? The requirement for settled status was 5 years in the UK, do you think that lack of CSI could lead to troubles with settled status in the future, for those, that already have it, but didn't pay CSI? Furthermore, do you think that could lead to citizenships being revoked too?

[Phenmeson]

Type: First Child passport
From: UK
Method: online

Date of Online Application: 01/02/2020
Date Identity Verified: 03/02/2020
Date Documents Sent: 03/02/2020
Documents delivered to: HMPO Belfast
Date Documents Received: 06/02/2020
Application being processed: 13/02/2020
Application Approved: pending
Passport Printed and Sent: pending
Date Passport Received: pending
Passport Colour: pending
Date of Return of Documents: pending

Other documents was REQUESTED to show the mother of Applicant was exercising her treaty rights which was provided.
14/05/2020, proof of sufficient funds, comprehensive medical insurance, Valid European Health insurance card (EHIC) was requested but yet to be provided. Any one with similar experience.

Hello,
I found this post in the British Passport application processing timelines (only) topic. I believe, that this is a very dangerous situation and the CSI may be the new Pandora box and cause a scandal similar to Windrush. In the letter I have received from Home Office when I received my settled status it said that: If a child is born to you while you have settled status, they will be a British citizen automatically at birth. Therefore, if someone has settled status, they should not be asked to provide any additional documentation for their children to receive citizenship. I am not sure, why they would ask those additional documents? Do you think it could lead to the settled status being revoked in some cases? The requirement for settled status was 5 years in the UK, do you think that lack of CSI could lead to troubles with settled status in the future, for those, that already have it, but didn't pay CSI? Furthermore, do you think that could lead to citizenships being revoked too?

In summary, the mom got her Settled status in March but the baby was born 2months before which was in January. She was due for Settled status a year before but due to Brexit uncertainty, the application wasn't made on time.

[AnotherUUID]

@Stefan Piatek,
The circumstances you quote are very different.

I am not sure, why they would ask those additional documents?

A baby born to a person settled in the UK will be British automatically. However, this still requires proof that one or both of the parents had already settled at the time of birth (unless one of the parents is a BC).

For EEA nationals there are three options to provide such evidence:

• Proof of settled status under the new EU Settlement Scheme. No proof of CSI is required.
• Document Certifying Permanent Residence (DCPR). No proof of CSI is required.
• Documentary evidence to show that they had met the requirements and automatically acquired PR status on or before the day that the child was born.

The latter is, in essence, similar to the application for DCPR and requires proof of CSI for periods spent as a student or self sufficient during the relevant qualifying period.

In summary, the mom got her Settled status in March but the baby was born 2months before which was in January. She was due for Settled status a year before but due to Brexit uncertainty, the application wasn't made on time.

Given this, as far as I can tell, there was was nothing wrong with HMPO asking for evidence, if she didn't have a DCPR and EUSS status was still being processed.

The requirement for settled status was 5 years in the UK, do you think that lack of CSI could lead to troubles with settled status in the future, for those, that already have it, but didn't pay CSI?

No. Settled status itself does not require CSI and cannot be invalidated due to lack of CSI.

[AnotherUUID]

The requirement for settled status was 5 years in the UK, do you think that lack of CSI could lead to troubles with settled status in the future, for those, that already have it, but didn't pay CSI?

No. Settled status itself does not require CSI and cannot be invalidated due to lack of CSI.

Clarification: by "settled status" here, I mean settled based on the new EUSS.

This distinction is important because the acquisition of settled status through permanent residence (EEA rules) is contingent upon, apart from residing in the UK, being a qualified person and remaining so during the qualifying period, which is where CSI comes in.

Settled status under the EUSS is, in contrast, residence based. The rules are different, and so is the way that the above cited case would be handled by the HMPO caseworker. Hope this clarifies the matter re the cited case.

[Frou01]

I’ve called HO they said the new requirement is from the time the guidance is in place (14th May I think it’s been published).

I called after a friend contacted them last week and received the same information.

[beaujam90]

I’ve called HO they said the new requirement is from the time the guidance is in place (14th May I think it’s been published).

I called after a friend contacted them last week and received the same information.

Oh cool ! That 's a very good news.

[Phenmeson]

Can anyone explain what is better between Permanent Residence or Settlement status issued to an EEA Citizen. And the differences between both because Permanent Residence is issued at £65 why Settlement status is free. Is it advisable to get the 2?

[alterhase58]

Can anyone explain what is better between Permanent Residence or Settlement status issued to an EEA Citizen. And the differences between both because Permanent Residence is issued at £65 why Settlement status is free. Is it advisable to get the 2?

The major difference between Permanent Residence (DCPR) and Settled Status - under different regulations:
PR: EEA Regulations which will apply in the UK until 31 Dec 2020
SettledStatus: UK Immigration Regulations (Appendix EU) which are put in place for EU/EEA citizens to regularise their stay after 31 Dec 2020 (end of the transition period)

They are both free as far as I understand. The £65 fee was waived by Theresa May's administration. Difficult to say what's better - PR in itself was generally acquired by being resident and exercising treaty rights and could therefore be backdated. The time frame for PR applications is closing rapidly. Settled Status is within UK law and can be amended by the UK government at will - it's a more straightforward application based on residence. For citizenship either will do, PR or Full settled status (with 12 months wait time). PR won't be valid after the transition period. Having both won't be more advantageous for naturalisation.

[CR001]

Can anyone explain what is better between Permanent Residence or Settlement status issued to an EEA Citizen. And the differences between both because Permanent Residence is issued at £65 why Settlement status is free. Is it advisable to get the 2?

The major difference between Permanent Residence (DCPR) and Settled Status - under different regulations:
PR: EEA Regulations which will apply in the UK until 31 Dec 2020
SettledStatus: UK Immigration Regulations (Appendix EU) which are put in place for EU/EEA citizens to regularise their stay after 31 Dec 2020 (end of the transition period)

They are both free as far as I understand. The £65 fee was waived by Theresa May's administration. Difficult to say what's better - PR in itself was generally acquired by being resident and exercising treaty rights and could therefore be backdated. The time frame for PR applications is closing rapidly. Settled Status is within UK law and can be amended by the UK government at will - it's a more straightforward application based on residence. For citizenship either will do, PR or Full settled status (with 12 months wait time). PR won't be valid after the transition period. Having both won't be more advantageous for naturalisation.

Already explained to the OP in their existing topic. Unclear why they persist in posting their questions in other topics.

british-citizenship/passport-applicatio ... l#p1902820

[Learning18]

I’ve called HO they said the new requirement is from the time the guidance is in place (14th May I think it’s been published).

I called after a friend contacted them last week and received the same information.

I called the home office today as well and they said the samething *fingers crossed*

[Frou01]

I’ve called HO they said the new requirement is from the time the guidance is in place (14th May I think it’s been published).

I called after a friend contacted them last week and received the same information.

I called the home office today as well and they said the samething *fingers crossed*

Brilliant! Fingers crossed for all of us.

[AnotherUUID]

I’ve called HO they said the new requirement is from the time the guidance is in place (14th May I think it’s been published).

I called after a friend contacted them last week and received the same information.

I called the home office today as well and they said the samething *fingers crossed*

I really hope this is the case and wish the best of luck to all applicants. It could certainly shed some light on the matter. However, taking the Devil's advocate side for a moment, I'd like to stress that the people answering the general HO helplines are not caseworkers and are, apparently, not trained or knowledgable to the same degree in order to correctly answer questions regarding specific issues / circumstances. This is especially the case for tricky or less well defined areas, such as the GCR. Any information they give relating to matters beyond generic topics may be inaccurate or misleading.

I have personally been given (unintentionally) misleading information when I was in touch with them a while back, as have other members on here based on their own reports, and I only found this out by doing further digging on my own.

By all means, applicants would be wise to gather and consider information from all available sources, including HO helplines. But one should always tread carefully and scrutinise every bit of it, irrespective of the channel.

[Frou01]

I’ve called HO they said the new requirement is from the time the guidance is in place (14th May I think it’s been published).

I called after a friend contacted them last week and received the same information.

I called the home office today as well and they said the samething *fingers crossed*

I really hope this is the case and wish the best of luck to all applicants. It could certainly shed some light on the matter. However, taking the Devil's advocate side for a moment, I'd like to stress that the people answering the general HO helplines are not caseworkers and are, apparently, not trained or knowledgable to the same degree in order to correctly answer questions regarding specific issues / circumstances. This is especially the case for tricky or less well defined areas, such as the GCR. Any information they give relating to matters beyond generic topics may be inaccurate or misleading.

I have personally been given (unintentionally) misleading information when I was in touch with them a while back, as have other members on here based on their own reports, and I only found this out by doing further digging on my own.

By all means, applicants would be wise to gather and consider information from all available sources, including HO helplines. But one should always tread carefully and scrutinise every bit of it, irrespective of the channel.

Yes of course, but that’s only one source.
As far as I can see they approve these days plenty of new applications and backlog.
So far everyone who got a decision and was worried their lack of CSI would cause problems got approved.
However we never know if people who got refusals or being asked to provide further documents communicate it. I guess not everyone would post about a refusal.
So we can’t be 100% sure that CSI is currently not causing any problems.

But now it’s been a few people calling HO getting the same answer.
As I’m one of them who applied before the new guidance, but waiting for many weeks to do biometrics
I contacted a lawyer to write my cover letter I’m still able to provide/ change.
I gave them the info of my call and anything I find important to support my case.
As things became so worrying I didn’t feel comfortable anymore to explain myself on my own.

[Frou01]

But we can worry and drive another mad.

Or think positive and with common sense that any change
would apply from the day a change has been published:
and that’s the 14th May.

[Learning18]

I’ve called HO they said the new requirement is from the time the guidance is in place (14th May I think it’s been published).

I called after a friend contacted them last week and received the same information.

I called the home office today as well and they said the samething *fingers crossed*

I really hope this is the case and wish the best of luck to all applicants. It could certainly shed some light on the matter. However, taking the Devil's advocate side for a moment, I'd like to stress that the people answering the general HO helplines are not caseworkers and are, apparently, not trained or knowledgable to the same degree in order to correctly answer questions regarding specific issues / circumstances. This is especially the case for tricky or less well defined areas, such as the GCR. Any information they give relating to matters beyond generic topics may be inaccurate or misleading.

I have personally been given (unintentionally) misleading information when I was in touch with them a while back, as have other members on here based on their own reports, and I only found this out by doing further digging on my own.

By all means, applicants would be wise to gather and consider information from all available sources, including HO helplines. But one should always tread carefully and scrutinise every bit of it, irrespective of the channel.

Yes of course, but that’s only one source.
As far as I can see they approve these days plenty of new applications and backlog.
So far everyone who got a decision and was worried their lack of CSI would cause problems got approved.
However we never know if people who got refusals or being asked to provide further documents communicate it. I guess not everyone would post about a refusal.
So we can’t be 100% sure that CSI is currently not causing any problems.

But now it’s been a few people calling HO getting the same answer.
As I’m one of them who applied before the new guidance, but waiting for many weeks to do biometrics
I contacted a lawyer to write my cover letter I’m still able to provide/ change.
I gave them the info of my call and anything I find important to support my case.
As things became so worrying I didn’t feel comfortable anymore to explain myself on my own.

Do you mind me asking if you have submitted your cover letter yet? Or are you waiting for them to contact you first to provide further information and then you will send the cover letter?

[Learning18]

I’ve called HO they said the new requirement is from the time the guidance is in place (14th May I think it’s been published).

I called after a friend contacted them last week and received the same information.

I called the home office today as well and they said the samething *fingers crossed*

I really hope this is the case and wish the best of luck to all applicants. It could certainly shed some light on the matter. However, taking the Devil's advocate side for a moment, I'd like to stress that the people answering the general HO helplines are not caseworkers and are, apparently, not trained or knowledgable to the same degree in order to correctly answer questions regarding specific issues / circumstances. This is especially the case for tricky or less well defined areas, such as the GCR. Any information they give relating to matters beyond generic topics may be inaccurate or misleading.

I have personally been given (unintentionally) misleading information when I was in touch with them a while back, as have other members on here based on their own reports, and I only found this out by doing further digging on my own.

By all means, applicants would be wise to gather and consider information from all available sources, including HO helplines. But one should always tread carefully and scrutinise every bit of it, irrespective of the channel.

I understand what you are saying totally about the HO helpline workers- some might not be well informed about everything. But I wanted to share with the people here the good or bad news, including if I get an approval or refusal. But obviously I desperately want an approval heheh as I am honestly really worried about this and reading about people getting approvals has lessened my worry by a lot ( I actually sleep now lol) and it has also made me more optimistic so I would like to return the favour if I hear something positive that might calm someone down and help them sleep hahahah

[Frou01]

I called the home office today as well and they said the samething *fingers crossed*

I really hope this is the case and wish the best of luck to all applicants. It could certainly shed some light on the matter. However, taking the Devil's advocate side for a moment, I'd like to stress that the people answering the general HO helplines are not caseworkers and are, apparently, not trained or knowledgable to the same degree in order to correctly answer questions regarding specific issues / circumstances. This is especially the case for tricky or less well defined areas, such as the GCR. Any information they give relating to matters beyond generic topics may be inaccurate or misleading.

I have personally been given (unintentionally) misleading information when I was in touch with them a while back, as have other members on here based on their own reports, and I only found this out by doing further digging on my own.

By all means, applicants would be wise to gather and consider information from all available sources, including HO helplines. But one should always tread carefully and scrutinise every bit of it, irrespective of the channel.

Yes of course, but that’s only one source.
As far as I can see they approve these days plenty of new applications and backlog.
So far everyone who got a decision and was worried their lack of CSI would cause problems got approved.
However we never know if people who got refusals or being asked to provide further documents communicate it. I guess not everyone would post about a refusal.
So we can’t be 100% sure that CSI is currently not causing any problems.

But now it’s been a few people calling HO getting the same answer.
As I’m one of them who applied before the new guidance, but waiting for many weeks to do biometrics
I contacted a lawyer to write my cover letter I’m still able to provide/ change.
I gave them the info of my call and anything I find important to support my case.
As things became so worrying I didn’t feel comfortable anymore to explain myself on my own.

Do you mind me asking if you have submitted your cover letter yet? Or are you waiting for them to contact you first to provide further information and then you will send the cover letter?

I scanned all documents prior submitting and after payment I uploaded them straight away. Took me 3 minutes and I thought that’s it now I just need to attend a biometrics appointment.
My cover letter was included and was supposed for the application I made, prepared for a long time.

Now this cover letter doesn’t seem to be appropriate anymore.
Not just to explain myself about CSI only, I also need to use that cover letter to explain why I answered in my form to the question “if you don’t meet the requirements... do you still want the ... to grant your application?” with “NO”. Because I met the requirements at the time of submitting, but I don’t with the new requirements published weeks later.
Therefore it will be very important for me to explain my answer to that question now!

When this came up I first had in my mind to leave it how it is and I could just wait and let them ask me for CSI and explain it then. It would have been an option.
But in the end I myself decided for a new cover letter.

[Frou01]

Once more regarding “misleading information”.

I would say make a screenshot about the time and number you called.
It’s their number and their employees. I called the Home Office about information and not a third party.
If they cannot answer general questions or train their stuff isn’t my concern.
They say themselves they record calls.
There have been occasions I used recorded calls in my favour. For example my bank and my council said in different matters no to a request and then I gave the information of the call and someone was listening to it and confirmed to me yes, we did say that.

They also say they before someone answers the form they don’t discuss cases. I asked a general question and made sure to ask the question twice and got twice the same answer, just to make sure.

[Learning18]

Once more regarding “misleading information”.

I would say make a screenshot about the time and number you called.
It’s their number and their employees. I called the Home Office about information and not a third party.
If they cannot answer general questions or train their stuff isn’t my concern.
They say themselves they record calls.
There have been occasions I used recorded calls in my favour. For example my bank and my council said in different matters no to a request and then I gave the information of the call and someone was listening to it and confirmed to me yes, we did say that.

They also say they before someone answers the form they don’t discuss cases. I asked a general question and made sure to ask the question twice and got twice the same answer, just to make sure.

Thank you very much, I just took a screenshot of the time and number I called for evidence, so they can listen back if it comes to them denying what they have said. I made sure I repeated the question a few times and explained to them, and he repeatedly gave me the same answer Haha.

Hopefully, I come back soon with lovely news and thank you again about your answer in regards to you explaining your cover letter

[Frou01]

Once more regarding “misleading information”.

I would say make a screenshot about the time and number you called.
It’s their number and their employees. I called the Home Office about information and not a third party.
If they cannot answer general questions or train their stuff isn’t my concern.
They say themselves they record calls.
There have been occasions I used recorded calls in my favour. For example my bank and my council said in different matters no to a request and then I gave the information of the call and someone was listening to it and confirmed to me yes, we did say that.

They also say they before someone answers the form they don’t discuss cases. I asked a general question and made sure to ask the question twice and got twice the same answer, just to make sure.

Thank you very much, I just took a screenshot of the time and number I called for evidence, so they can listen back if it comes to them denying what they have said. I made sure I repeated the question a few times and explained to them, and he repeatedly gave me the same answer Haha.

Hopefully, I come back soon with lovely news and thank you again about your answer in regards to you explaining your cover letter

Brilliant!

And as you spoke to a “he” and I spoke to a “she” means we spoke to different people giving us the same information.