The Scale-up visa has launched – what do you need to know?

The brand-new Scale-up visa has finally come into force. Described as “the biggest visa improvement in a generation” by the Coalition for a Digital Economy, the Scale-up work visa is designed for the UK’s top high-growth businesses to attract exceptional talent, including scientists, engineers, programmers, and architects.

With the UK facing several challenges to its economy, not withstanding Brexit, the aftermath of the Covid pandemic, and the highest number of job vacancies in decades, this new Scale-up work visa comes at a critical time.

So, how exactly does the Scale-up visa work?

When an applicant applies for this type of visa for the first time, they need to obtain sponsorship from a “qualified” employer for at least 6 months.

The Home Office pointed out that this means that the applicant needs to meet the following requirements when applying for the Scale-up first visa:

Obtain a job offer for a work contract of at least 6 months from an employer recognized by the Home Office
Hold a valid CoS (Certificate of Sponsorship) issued by a qualified sponsor (that is, an employer) , and the CoS needs to provide relevant information about the applicant’s position
The position/job content that the applicant is about to do is suitable for Scale-up application (that is, it needs to meet the RQF 6 technical level )
Applicants must have an annual salary of £33,000 and also meet the “going rate” requirements for their type of work

At the same time, when applying, the applicant also needs to meet the English B1 , financial/deposit requirements (28 days of deposit of 1,270 pounds, or have lived in the UK for 12 months, or be sponsored by the employer), and provide a tuberculosis test certificate ( For applicants in need: https://www.gov.uk/tb-test-visa/countries-where-you-need-a-tb-test-to-enter-the-uk )

Which types of workers can apply for a Scale-up visa?

The Home Office released a list of all “Scale-up” applicable types of work. Please refer to this link for the full list: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scale-up-going-rates-for-eligible-occupations/scale-up-going-rates-for-eligible-occupations.

Since RQF level 6 must be reached, these applicable positions are similar to those applicable to the old Tier 2 general work visa (type of work). But of course, the list of types of work may change and be updated over time, and the actual list is still subject to the above-mentioned list published by the Home Office.

Can you change employers within the first 6 months of holding a Scale-up visa?

If the parties involved need to change employers (i.e. “sponsors”) during the “first 6 months” of the “first visa”, they need to apply for a Scale-up visa again (this process is like the current Skilled Worker technical work visa. If the client changes the “sponsor/employer”, they will need to apply for a new visa). However, the Scale-up visa is more flexible, because if the person’s job role changes but they did not change employer, they do not need to apply again.

Moreover, since there is only a ” first 6-month sponsorship system “, as long as the 6 months are completed, the parties can freely change employers and jobs (the sponsored worker can even choose “self-employment”).

However, the parties need to be aware that no matter what job you change to, you should ensure that you can continue to meet the requirements for “renewal” and ” transfer to permanent residence ” in the future.

Extending the Scale-up visa

It is worth mentioning that the Scale-up visa initially has a one-time, two-year validity period. After two years, applicants can apply for “renewal” if they meet the following conditions:

The applicant has completed at least 6 months in the work described in the first signed CoS ;
If the applicant can prove that in the past two years of holding the “first visa”, at least 50% of the time, the annual salary has reached at least 33,000 pounds (the applicant needs to submit PAYE to prove it).

It should be pointed out here that the applicant can apply for renewal after holding the first Scale-up visa for two years. If the applicant has completed the Scale-up visa for 5 years (it has been renewed once in the process), wants to continue to apply “Renewal” is also possible.

This means that when the applicant wants to continue to apply for renewal after 5 years , they also need to meet the annual salary of at least 33,000 pounds for at least 50% of the time in the past 5 years (in fact, whenever renewal” is required at least half of the Scale-up visas held in the past need to meet the annual salary requirement of 33,000 pounds).

In addition, although the Scale-up worker visa allows the parties to do part-time or even self-employment in the process (you can do several jobs at the same time), when calculating the annual salary there are strict requirements:

1. During the period, only the income of “single/one” job shall be taken into account

2. Moreover, since the Home Office only accepts “PAYE” certificates, it means that the self-employment of the person concerned cannot be counted.

Supplementary explanation: For example, let’s say an applicant works two jobs at the same time between January and December: the annual salary of job A is 25,000 pounds, and the annual salary of job B is also 25,000 pounds. Then, even if the total annual salary of the two jobs adds up to £50,000, the applicant still does not meet the salary requirements of the Home Office. This is because, when calculating, the Home Office will only use “one salary” as the standard.

To give another example: Let’s assume that the applicant still holds two jobs in the same year; the first job pays £ 35,000 a year and the second £20,000. In this example, the applicant’s first job has already met the £33,000 threshold through their first job. This person qualifies for the Scale-up visa.

According to the explanation of the Home Office, in the “annual salary certificate” of the year, the applicant only needs to submit the income certificate of the “first” job (the one with the higher salary). After the renewal application is successful, the applicant can obtain a one-time 3-year Scale-up visa.

After 5 years of permanent residence – apply for indefinite leave to remain

Like the Skilled Worker visa, Scale-up is also a work visa path that can be transferred to permanent residence after 5 years.

If the applicant wants to apply for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) after holding the first visa for 2 years + renewal for 3 years and “full 5 years “, they need to prove the following when applying:

The applicant is employed in a job with an annual salary of no less than £33,000 at the time of application (provided by PAYE );
The applicant has at least 24 months in the last 3 years (based on the date of “application for indefinite leave to remain”, with an annual salary of at least 33,000 pounds (also requires a PAYE certificate) ;
Applicants will also need to pass the Life in the UK exam.

In addition to the above, applicants also need to prove that they have held a qualified and valid work visa for the past 5 years and meet the requirements of “continuous residence” (5-year continuous period).

It is worth mentioning that, in addition to holding a Scale-up visa , the above-mentioned five- year continuous residence period of “full five years” can also be added by holding the following visa paths:

Skilled Worker
Global Talent
Innovator Visa
T2 Religious Work Visa Minister of Religion
International Sportsperson
Representative of an Overseas Business (old system first-generation visa and media representative visa)
Other Tier 1 immigrants (except Tier 1 Graduate Entrepreneurs)

Converting a Skilled worker visa to a Scale-up visa

Here we specifically explain the situation of holding a Skilled Worker (or the old T2 general work visa) and converting it to a new Scale-up visa.

For example, if you originally held a Skilled Worker visa, and then you want to change jobs and successfully apply for a Scale-up visa through a new employer; then when you change to permanent residence after 5 years, you need to follow the permanent residence application requirements of the Scale-up route (that is, when you want to apply for permanent residence, you are taking a Scale-up visa) .

This means that, assuming that you have already held a Skilled Worker visa (or T2 ordinary work visa) for 3 years, after you change to the new Scale-up work visa, this allows you to use the Skilled Worker visa + Scale-up visa (3 +2 years) to achieve the purpose of applying for indefinite leave to remain after 5 years.

But the premise is that you need to make sure that at that time, you can meet the (listed above) Scale-up requirements for permanent residence.

This basically means that when you want to change to permanent residence, the first 1: Your current annual salary has reached at least £33,000; 2: No matter whether you held a Skilled Worker or a Scale-up in the “last 3 years” before you transferred to permanent residence , you still need to meet – 3 years For at least 24 months, you must earn at least £33,000 a year.

At the same time, because the two types of work visas have different requirements for “type of work “, if you want to switch from the original Skilled Work visa to the Scale-up visa, you also need to confirm in advance that your own ” type of work” is appropriate.

But of course, if you can meet all the above conditions and successfully transfer from the original Skilled Worker (or T2 ordinary work visa) to the Scale-up visa, you may only be holding the Scale-up for less than 5 years time (even only one year), through the Scale-up path “successfully obtained permanent residency”.

For example, when you originally held a Skilled Worker, your annual salary has always been more than 33,000 pounds. You plan to change companies and need to apply for a new work visa. The new employer is also willing to pay you an annual salary of more than 33,000 pounds. You are also satisfied with the application. Scale-up related conditions. Then, maybe you’ll want to consider applying for a Scale-up work visa instead of continuing on a Skilled Worker work visa in exchange for greater freedom.

On the other hand, for your new employer, if they sponsor you to apply for a Scale-up visa, it will also save you an “Immigration Skills Charge”. Then perhaps, for both of you, Scale-up will be an effective ” win-win ” new option.

Our comments

Lisa’s Law recommends that if you are not very clear about your situation, or if there is something you don’t know how to calculate, you should seek professional legal advice. Moreover, not only employees, but also employers can contact Lisa Immigration Department if they have any questions . Our professional immigration team will give legal advice that best suits your business needs.

The single application fee for a Scale-up visa is £715 , which includes the main applicant and the applicant’s “accompanying family members” (£715 per person). In addition to the visa application fee, applicants are also required to pay a medical surcharge (generally £624 per year).

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Welcome Jessie

We’re very happy to announce the arrival of our newest colleague, Jessie Yang. Jessie joins us as an immigration paralegal and has made already made a great impression through her extensive legal knowledge.

Jessie studied LLB Law & International Legal Studies at the University of Southampton. During her Undergraduate Degree, she had an invaluable opportunity to participate in a Year’s Exchange Programme at the Chinese University of Hong Kong where she studied International Criminal Law. She subsequently completed her LLM in Public International Law at the Queen Mary University of London in 2020 and is currently completing her solicitor’s qualifying exam.

Prior to Lisa’s Law, she previously worked for Citizens Advice Bureau. During her studies at the universities, she completed Summer Placements at several city law firms in London, including Lisa’s Law Solicitors.

In her spare time, Jessie enjoys dancing, travelling, and writing. Impressively, she also self-published two linguistic books on Amazon last year. Jessie is fluent in Chinese Mandarin and English.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Does inheritance tax have to be paid before probate is granted?

Probate is a topic which we have covered in some of our family law articles in the past. In many cases, people will only be granted probate if they have paid inheritance tax. However, many people in this situation may wish to be granted probate before they pay inheritance tax in order to know what they are owed.

Lots of clients in this situation believe that they don’t need to consider paying inheritance tax until they get the inherited money, which is not the case. Quite rightly, you might say, clients will often make the argument ‘ I haven’t received any money; how can I pay inheritance tax’?. This seems to be a ‘circular’ problem. Nevertheless, this is the way the system works in England and Wales. We will go into detail about some of the ways in which you can afford the inheritance tax fee later on in the article.

What is probate?

As a reminder of what probate is – in England and Wales, probate refers to the legal and financial process involved in dealing with a person’s property, money and belongings (called assets or estate) after their death. It is a legal document and confirms who has the authority to administer the estate of the deceased.

Put simply, before you can execute the deceased family estate, you need to go through the statutory process to obtain a probate. Once you receive your probate, you will have the legal right to take the actions specified in the will to enforce the assets of a loved one who has tragically passed away.

For example, an executor can close a bank account, sell a deceased person’s property, sell stock, transfer property to a beneficiary, or close an investment account.

Inheritance tax has to be paid before probate is granted in the case of an estate which is subject to inheritance tax.

So, when is an estate subject to inheritance tax?

When it comes to inheritance tax, estates worth more than £325,000 are generally subject to estate tax. If the total value of the deceased’s estate, including gifts over the past 7 years, is more than £325,000, you will need to pay estate duty to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). You will also need to organise the payment of estate duty using Form IHT400. The standard inheritance tax rate is 40%, which is charged on the part of the estate that’s above the tax-free threshold of £325,000.

You may not have to pay inheritance tax if the value of the estate is below £325,000, or if you leave everything to your spouse, civil partner, a charity or a community amateur sports club. Even if the value of the estate is below the threshold, you will still need to inform the Probate Registry about the deceased’s estate value when you are applying for a grant of representation. This is a document that confirms who has the legal authority to administer the estate.

While the threshold is usually £325,000, if you give away your home to your children (including foster, adopted or step-children) or grandchildren then you might get an additional tax free threshold. This is called the residence nil rate band. For the current tax year, this additional threshold is £175,000, which brings the total threshold up to £500,000. Your threshold can also be altered if you are married or in a civil partnership and your estate is worth less than the threshold, as the unused threshold can be added to your partner’s threshold when you die. There are also certain inheritance tax exemptions and relief available, therefore professional advice may help.

Inheritance tax is paid before the application for probate

The probate process generally follows 5 steps: registering the death, identifying assets and liabilities and ascertaining estate values, inquiry and payment of inheritance tax, submitting an application for probate, and paying the probate fee. The inquiry and payment of inheritance tax generally comes before the submission of an application for probate. Read our article for more information about probate process by clicking here.

Time limits on the payment of inheritance tax

Please see the below table for time limits when it comes to payment of inheritance tax before probate is granted.

In practice, after HMRC confirms the IHT is cleared, HMRC will issue the IHT receipt to the Probate Registry directly (not to the payee). Once the Probate Registry has the record of IHT receipt, it can proceed with the relevant probate application. Therefore, in order to obtain the grant, the personal representatives will have to pay any IHT due on the delivery of the IHT account.

Paying for inheritance tax

There are a few ways possible to fund for the IHT payment – these include: bank loans, loans from beneficiaries, direct payments to HMRC from the deceased’s bank account, in yearly instalments, or through trusts. It is much better to pay IHT as soon as you can, as HMRC will charge you interest if you do not pay the inheritance tax by the due date (the end of the sixth month after the person died). Life insurance policies can be used to pay for all or some of an inheritance tax bill by protecting your home or other assets which may need to be sold before probate is granted.

After inheritance tax is paid, if you then overpay on the amount that the estate owes, HMRC will refund you the excess after you have been granted probate, as well as any interest.

At Lisa’s Law, we understand that the death of a loved one like a relative can be a difficult time for everyone involved.

If you’d like help navigating the complexities of probate and the management of the estate, get in touch with Lisa’s Law today and the highly trained Family Law experts will be able to assist you in your time of need.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Is the Home Office responsible for an asylum seeker being attacked in their accommodation?

By Xijia Xie

In today’s article, we look at a recent case, R (on the application of MG) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. In this case, the claimant is an asylum seeker who was provided with private accommodation by the Secretary of State. He was attacked by a fellow asylum seeker (A) during the stay and was seriously injured. He initiated Judicial Review proceedings against the Secretary of State on the grounds that she did not perform her obligation to sufficiently investigate after the incident.

Judicial review is, in a nutshell, a process by which an individual may bring a claim against the government for not acting lawfully.

In this case, the Claimant believes that the Secretary of State’s omission to investigate gave rise to a claim that the Claimant’s Article 3 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached. Article 3 states:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Was the Secretary of State obliged to carry out a separate investigation?

The submitted claim was not accusing Secretary of State of the harm but rather that adequate action was not taken after the claimant was already injured. This is possible because section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides that the government must act compatibly with the Convention. The Secretary of State did not carry out a separate investigation. Accordingly, the question of whether she is obliged to do so, is the key issue of the case.

The Claimant submitted that a duty is owed in this case but did not provide any case law in which asylum seekers accommodated in private housing (a hotel) triggered the duty. The Court thus had to decide on this point by assessing it as a new precedent. It mainly considered:

Were hotels accommodating asylum seekers inherently dangerous?
Were the claimant and A under exclusive control of Secretary of State?
Was the Secretary of State otherwise responsible for the health and welfare of the claimant and A?

Court not convinced that the Secretary of State breached her systematic duty

On the first point, the Court was not satisfied that accommodating asylum seekers in hotels is inherently dangerous. However, it reserves the possibility of a different outcome if one or more individuals were known to be a risk. On the second, the claimant and his fellow asylum seekers were not under detention. They were given a room, but they are not obliged to stay there. On the third, the Court held that the Secretary of State was only under a general legal obligation to look after the accommodated asylum seekers, who have the capacity and autonomy to be responsible for their own well-being.

As a result, the claimant failed to convince the Court that the Secretary of State had breached her systematic duty.

Home Secretary did not breach her operational duty

The claimant also submitted to the Court that the Secretary of State breached her operational duty during the incident on 25th June 2020. This was also refused by the Court because the hotel staff that were authorised by the Government did not have protective equipment (or were legally required to) and could not confront the attacker physically. They called the police immediately and it would not be reasonable to expect unprotected hotel staff members to do more than they already did.

As can be seen from the result, it is possible for Secretary of State to be liable for failing to carry out a positive action, but the claimant must prove that the obligation is owed. Unfortunately, in this case, neither was successful.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Welcome Cassandra

We are delighted to welcome one of our newest employees, Cassandra Ngu. Cassandra joins us as a conveyancing solicitor and has already displayed her legal knowledge and made a great impression on the team.

Cassandra first studied at the University of Nottingham, where she earned her degree in economics. She then went on to complete her Masters of Law and Legal Practise Course, both at the University of Law in London.

Cassandra qualified as a solicitor earlier this year and has joined Lisa’s Law’s property team as a conveyancing solicitor.

Cassandra is also fluent in both English and Mandarin.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Court rules that Leave to Remain application under domestic violence route is not suitable for dependents of T2 visa holders

Written by Katherine Sun (Paralegal)

Leave to remain (LTR) applications under the Destitute Domestic Violence Concession (DDVC) scheme can be treated differently but not discriminated against based on what kind of status applicants hold. Recently, an Indian citizen’s LTR application was refused on the grounds that she was not eligible for the DDVC route by holding a T2 dependent visa.

Please note that the T2 visa and T2 dependant visa has now been replaced by the Skilled Worker visa and Skilled Worker dependant visa respectively.

Below we look at more details of the case and go through one of the core issues that might be a challenge in the DDVC cases. Keep finding to find out what the issues were.

R (on the application of SWP) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 2067 (Admin)

The Claimant was an Indian national whose husband came to the UK from India with a T2 migrant visa with the intention to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) as a T2 migrant worker. In 2017, the Claimant and her son joined her husband in London as T2 dependents.

Unfortunately, the relationship did not go well. The Claimant and her son moved out of their accommodation due to domestic violence. She therefore applied for a 3-month extension of her LTR under the DDVC.

The Defendant refused her application claiming that she was not eligible for the DDVC. The decision then was brought to the Judicial review.

Judicial review proceedings

The Claimant argued the following points in relation to lawfulness of the decision:

excluding her from the protection of the DDVC was discriminatory and accordingly, contrary to her right under art 14 of the ECHR.
her husband, as a T2 worker, has an expectation to apply for ILR comparable to that of a refugee or an EEA national, which both are within the DDVC protection.

Regarding the above points, the Defendant submitted the following arguments to support the decision:

the only issue is whether the Claimant should have been approved to maintain in the country as a victim of domestic violence rather than any other circumstances.
the comparison with refugees and EEA nationals is invalid.
The bottom line is not whether the application should succeed but whether she is eligible for LTR as a victim of domestic violence.

The judgement

The Court reviewed the decision stating that the difference of treatment was justified, although the Claimant’s husband had a strong expectation of settlement. As a spouse of T2 migrant workers, it is lawful that the claimant was treated differently from others eligible for the DDVC, namely the partners or spouses of British Citizens, those with settled status, refugees and EEA nationals.

Our comments

The DDVC route is no doubt a significant lifesaving choice to those who have been experiencing domestic violence from their spouses or partners. Before you hand in your application seeking protection from it, please assess your eligibility first. The case shows that only those who are in the UK as partners or spouses under the family route can be eligible. Dependents of other visa holders will be considered opposite.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Britain’s hot strike summer heats up as legal sector industrial action gathers steam

The British summer of 2022 may well go down as the summer of strikes. Workers across a wide range of sectors, including railway workers, bus workers, post office workers, airport workers, and barristers have all been on strike so far this summer, largely over disputes involving pay and conditions as inflation continues to increase and worsen the country’s cost of living crisis.

The legal sector has not been immune to this, with legal workers suffering from the same side effects of inflation as other workers across the country and feeling the pinch in their pay packets as a result. As a result, barristers have been on strike for most of the summer, with magistrates’ court staff now set to follow suit. However, the perception among the general public tends to be that barristers in particular are high-earning workers who do not deserve a pay rise.

A recent survey by the polling company YouGov found that out of 14 professions, barristers were lowest when it came to public support. While 60% of the public would back a strike by nurses, just 19% would back a strike by barristers. 65% of those polled would oppose such a strike, with further polling showing that they also come lowest in terms of public sympathy for a strike by barristers. A massive 45% said they wouldn’t have any sympathy at all for striking barristers.

This is indicative of the attitude towards barristers by the general public. To them, barristers often feel aloof and elitist and are also perceived as being high earning. As a result, strikes among legal sector workers are likely to continue to be unpopular with the public. In reality, those who are just starting out as criminal barristers often earn far less than they would do in other practise areas. According to the Criminal Bar Association, crime juniors can average earnings of £12,200 in their first three years – less than minimum wage.

Keep reading to learn more about the strikes taking place in the legal sector and the reasons for them.

Magistrates’ court staff strikes

The latest set of strikes to take effect concerns magistrates’ court staff, who voted overwhelmingly (93%) in favour of industrial action over the rollout of HM Courts and Tribunals Service’s (HMCTS) Common Platform. The strikes are primarily a result of the digitisation of the courts which has taken place over the past couple of years since the introduction of the Common Platform in September 2020. The government spent £236m implementing the system. While the HMCTS describe the system as “key to modernising the court system”, it has been beset by problems since its introduction.

In a statement last month, the Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) said that the Common Platform is “fundamentally unfit for purpose and PCS members are no longer willing to have to grapple with a system that is negatively and significantly impacting on their health, safety and well-being.” They have called for a number of ‘clear, reasonable and achievable demands’ including stopping the input of new cases to the Common Platform, requiring all current Common Platform cases to be resulted outside of the courtroom, and ensuring there are no further job losses arising as a result of the Common Platform.

While there does seem to be agreement that the Common Platform is necessary in the long-term, as it is in theory meant to allow all parties, including court staff, solicitors, barristers, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and members of the judiciary to access case information.

Criminal Bar Association Strikes

The magistrates court staff strikes follows strikes by barristers last month, which saw the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) take action partly over an increase to the government’s set fees for legal aid work.

The increase, set to take place in September this year, originally amounted to 9%, a figure described by the Law Society of England and Wales president I. Stephanie Boyce as what should be “the floor of funding increases and not the ceiling”. The 9% proposed failed to meet the bare minimum figure of 15% which was recommend in the independent review conducted by Sir Christopher Bellamy last year. The 15% figure was later met by the Ministry of Justice, however the CBA is now calling for a 25% uplift, to reflect the 28% cut in legal aid fees they say has occurred in the past decade.

There is also a huge backlog of 58,000 cases according to the CBA, meaning that without sufficient legal aid funding there aren’t enough prosecutors and defenders for the system to function smoothly.

A ballot for further strike action is expected to take place later this month, which would be an escalation of the current alternating weeks of action that has been in effect since late June. If CBA members do vote to strike, this would lead to uninterrupted strike action, a clear escalation of the current practise.

The action taken by the CBA in the strikes includes:

Court walkouts
Refusing to accept new instructions
No returns

Our thoughts

Clearly, this is not an ideal situation for anyone. The issues with the Common Platform appear to be widely felt by those Magistrates’ Court workers who felt that it is necessary for them to go on strike over it. Meanwhile, criminal barristers earning less than minimum wage may find it hard to justify continuing working in an underfunded practise area like this when they can earn more elsewhere.

It remains to be seen whether the transitional government will take any action over the issues highlighted by the Public and Commercial Services Union and the Criminal Bar Association, certainly before the next Prime Minister is put in place by the Conservative Party in September.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Police registration enters the history books for foreign nationals

For those of you are foreign nationals, when you first arrive in the UK you will probably be familiar with the need to “register with the police station” after obtaining a new visa. Even if a foreign national’s personal circumstances change, they have also previously needed to report to the registered police station.

However, after slightly under the radar communication to the individuals affected, police registration has officially entered the history books. The UK Home Office has hence removed the mandatory requirement of “police registration” for certain applicants.

From now on, if you try to make an appointment online, you will also see an announcement on the Met Police’s official website, informing you that “Registration with a Police Station” has been cancelled. This also goes for police stations in other UK regions.

This means that no matter what visa you are holding or what your current nationality is, you no longer need to register with the police as you did before. According to the announcement, if you originally needed to register, and have already registered, you will no longer need to update and notify the police station if your personal information changes in the future.

It should be noted, however, that if your personal information changes, you will still need to contact the Immigration Department to inform them of your new changes.

For example, if your residential address changes then you do not need to apply for a new BRP (Biometric residence permit) card. However, you will need to inform Immigration of your new address via: https://visa-address-update.service.gov.uk/?_ga=2.38622955.933955761.1659617248-1068361535.1651159568

Complete the form and send it to the address on the form: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notification-of-change-of-circumstances-form-mcc

You will need to apply for a new BRP card if the following information changes:

Name
Nationality
Facial appearance
Date of birth (if it was wrong for example)
Gender

The detailed application process can be found on the UK Government website: https://www.gov.uk/change-circumstances-visa-brp

Jessica Luo, an immigration consultant at Lisa Law Firm, said that since August 1 this year, when the Immigration Department issued a visa, it began to remove the requirement of “police registration” in the decision letter. For these newly approved visas, the Immigration Service has not given mandatory conditions for “police registration”.

Therefore, it is now further confirmed that the cancellation of this requirement is actually traceable.

In response to the extended questions that may be brought about by the new changes, we have specially compiled the following queries and answers:

→ If I have registered before, do I still need to keep the relevant certificates?

According to the content of the announcement, the parties will not be required to provide proof of police registration. So, if you have completed the registration, you do not need to keep the Police Registration Certificate.

However, we suggest that if keeping the certificates isn’t particularly difficult for you, it is better for you to keep hold of them just in case you need them. You could also take screenshots or photos as a backup option.

→ If I just completed the registration, can I ask for the registration fee back now?

Unfortunately, if you have already paid the fee and registered, you cannot claim your registration fee back. Even if you complete your registration the day before your Police Registration is cancelled, you will not be able to apply to get your money back.

This is because the fee includes the administrative processing fee for “Registration with the Police Station”, and since they have already processed it, you naturally cannot claim the fee back.

→ What if it is said to have been “reserved”?

If you have already made an appointment but have not paid the fee, then you will not need to go to the police station to complete the registration. As previously mentioned, the Police Registration requirement has been removed. You no longer need to complete the registration at the original scheduled time and place.

If you make a special trip out of concern, when you arrive at the police station, the police officers will still tell you that the requirement for police station registration has been cancelled and they will no longer accept it. So, you don’t need to make an extra trip.

But again, just to be on the safe side, you can keep a screenshot of the “police bulletin” to prove you’re just doing what the bulletin says. This way you can also feel more at ease.

→ What about people who originally needed to register, but did not register in time?

Suppose you were originally required to register with the police, but you did not register with the police within 7 days of arriving in the UK, or within 7 days of receiving the result of your application. Well, now you also don’t have to book and register anymore.

As mentioned earlier, we still recommend that you keep the relevant content of the police announcement as a proof if necessary in the future.

In the end, we would like to remind again that although the “police registration” has been cancelled, the requirement that you need to notify the immigration office of changes in personal information has not been cancelled.

At the same time, if your personal circumstances change when you apply for a replacement BRP, you also need to inform the Immigration Department by filling out the following form. These changes include but are not limited to: criminal record, divorce/separation from your spouse or partner, independence of children live and no longer live with you, etc.

Link to the form: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notification-of-change-of-circumstances-form-mcc

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Is Covid a viable defence by commercial tenants for rent arrears? No, says the Court of Appeal!

The Court of Appeal has recently found that a tenant cannot use Covid as a defence for rent arrears. The case acts as an important case study for rent arrears accrued during the pandemic as well as dispute resolution between commercial landlords and tenants.

The cases in question were as follows, Bank of New York Mellon (International) Limited v Cine-UK Limited and London Trocadero (2015) LLP v Picturehouse Cinemas Limited & ors. These appeals were made in the Court of Appeal by the cinema operators to quash the summary judgment in the first hearing that entitled the landlords to all rent arrears payments.

Keep reading to learn more about the case.

Background

As we all know, the lockdowns precipitated by the Covid-19 pandemic had a disastrous impact on economies across the world, affecting businesses and individuals alike. One of the types of business perhaps most affected by the pandemic were cinemas – with the activity of sitting in a room of people for hours lending itself particularly well to a virus which spreads extremely well in poorly ventilated areas.

The lockdowns which subsequently came in and justifiably meant that cinemas were not allowed to legally operate resulted in a considerable decrease in revenue which ran concurrently with the reality that cinemas had to continue to pay rent to their landlords. This is the topic of contention in this jointly held case.

Businesses from other industries have also attempted to use the pandemic as reason to avoid paying rent that was due during the pandemic, with the property fund manager First Property Group recently winning half a million pounds in rent arrears from the operators of jewellers H. Samuel and Ernest Jones.

The government acted on the considerable level of dispute over rent arrears which accrued during the pandemic by passing the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Act 2022. This made provision for the enabling of rent debt relief in certain circumstances where business tenancies were adversely affected by coronavirus. This was to be made possible through arbitration.

The landlords in the respective cases were Bank of New York Mellon, which operates a cinema complex situated in a shopping centre in Bristol (Cine-UK), and London Trocadero, which operates a cinema complex in Piccadilly, London(Picturehouse).

The case

The tenants, Cine-UK and Picturehouse Cinemas, which are both part of the Cineworld Group, filed their appeals in late 2021, after they had been allowed to open following the end of restrictions on cinemas.

Cine-UK’s premises were only open for business for a very short window between March 2020 and May 2021, when they finally opened again for good. However, it wasn’t until July 2021 that cinemas were finally able to reopen unrestricted. This was also the case for the Picturehouse cinema, which was only open for about 2 months between March 2020 and May 2021.

Both tenants objected to the payment of rent during this period for two main reasons. Their arguments for this were as follows:

The Government restrictions imposed due to the pandemic had given them the right to seek relief from their obligation to pay rent during this period
It was an implied term of the agreement that should the tenant not be able to lawfully use their premises as a cinema, then they should be relieved of their obligation to pay rent.

Cine-UK made a third argument in the case of Bank of New York vs Cine-UK. They claimed that the phrase ‘damage or destruction’ was pertaining to non-physical damage in the form of the effect which the Covid pandemic had on the business, rather than purely physical damage or destruction.

Judgements

All of the arguments made by the tenants were rejected by the Court of Appeal.

With the first argument, which focused on failure of basis, the judge observed that it was “difficult to argue that the landlord had been unjustly enriched in circumstances where the rent had not been paid”.

The second argument, concerning implied terms of the agreement, was dismissed by the Court as the ‘leases worked well without the need for implied terms to be read into them’.

For the other argument which was made by Cine-UK, the judge ruled that the landlord’s argument that “damage and destruction” was limited to physical damage and destruction was correct. Cine-UK had attempted to construe the term “damage and destruction” as not being solely physical, meaning that the enforced lockdowns could come under this description as well.

Our thoughts

While these businesses clearly struggled during the pandemic as a result of not being able to open and legally operate, this was also the case for businesses up and down the country, many of which were much smaller in size than Cine-UK and Picturehouse.

The outcome of this case will bring much more certainty to commercial landlords, as it confirms their right to enforce against long-standing rent arrears which are not subject to mandatory arbitration. As a result, making an exception for these businesses does not seem justified, and the decision made by the judge in the Court of Appeal therefore seems to be the right one.

It may subsequently result in commercial tenants favouring the arbitration route in future, for which they have until 23^rd September 2022 when the scheme closes.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Successful appeal on behalf of elderly Chinese national after Home Office’s unsympathetic refusal of leave to remain

We have recently been successful in an appeal which has led to our client, aged 84, obtaining leave to remain on the basis of her family and private life. This follows an initial leave to remain refusal by the Home Office.

Our client made an application based on exceptional circumstances outside of the immigration rules.

Background

Our client is an 84 year old Chinese national. Her son and his family live in the United Kingdom and she has been visiting them regularly from China over the years. She had always complied with her visa requirements.

During her recent visit, our client was involved in road traffic accident whilst crossing the road, which led to her suffering significant injuries to her head and back. Although her physical injuries were slowly recovering, our client became dependent on her son, and feared living on her own in China.

An application was made outside of the rules for her to remain in the UK with her son. The Home Office refused the application stating that there were no extenuating circumstances, and she could receive adequate treatment in China.

We appealed the decision.

The Appeal

The Appeal was heard by the First-tier Tribunal. The Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) relied on their reasons given in the refusal of the application.

Our key arguments were as follows:

1. Our client was a genuine visitor and had a long history of compliance with UK immigration rules.

2. We argued the importance of appreciating the context of her circumstances that led to the application for leave to remain. The client would have returned to China if it was not for the road traffic accident

3. There would be significant obstacles to her integration in China due to her ill health, frailty and age, together with lack of support

4. Our client had established both a private life and family life as she has closer than normal emotional ties with her son following her accident and was no longer independent. Removal from the UK would therefore be disproportionate.

The case was reserved and after a few weeks, we received a decision allowing the appeal.

Our Comments

This was an appeal that was of great importance to our client. If the Tribunal dismissed our client’s claim, then our client would be forced to return home where she would live alone without any support. We were adamant of the need for a successful outcome, as we could see the severe effect that it would have on our client’s well-being should she be forced to return to her home country of China.

We are very pleased with the result. The decision made by the Home Office initially had a lack of empathy and compassion of the client’s circumstances. The client is 84 and suffered a significant injury here in the UK and the only family member she had was her son, who lived in the UK. We are pleased that she will now receive the support she needs from her family in the UK.

Have questions about this article? Get in touch today!

Call us on 020 7928 0276, our phone lines are open and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Use the Ask Lisa function on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/ask-question/

Or, download our free app! You can launch an enquiry, scan over documents, check progress on your case and much more!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Have a question? Our friendly and experienced team are here to help.

Subscribe to our newsletter

We post weekly articles covering a variety of topics, including immigration, property, and more, so subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates.