January 3, 2020
Case Study, Custody, Family Law, Immigration, Law, Litigation, Visa

Custody battle between parents – how to make the best of a bad situation

The love between a parent and their child forms the base of the strongest bond imaginable between humans, and most families will do whatever it takes to stay together. However, sometimes life gets in the way and family situations are not always going to be perfect. We recently handled a sensitive family case, and are proud of how it turned out.

The case in question:

For the purposes of client confidentiality, we will call the mother Helen, the father Vincent and their 12 year old son Mark.

Helen is a Japanese national who came to the UK on a student visa when she was 18. She met Vincent, who is 30 years her elder, while living here and together they have a baby boy called Mark.

Due to his father being a British national, and the fact that he was born here as well, Mark is automatically also a British national.

After a couple of years of living happily in the UK as a family, Vincent was offered the chance to work in Spain, which he agreed to. Hesitant, but wanting the family to stay together, Helen agreed to move to Spain with her husband and son.

The beginning of trouble…

While living in Spain, Helen started to feel increasingly depressed and detached. She knew nothing of Spanish culture, had no friends and could not speak the language. In turn, she could not find work or be financially independent and her life was becoming more and more tedious as the months went by. Although she still very much enjoyed looking after Mark, she often felt very alone.

Additionally, the house where the family was staying in Spain was not child friendly. It lacked a proper heating system and had a leaky roof and poorly maintained flooring.

During this time, Vincent started spending less time at home as he became more and more busy with his work. This added to the loneliness Helen felt.

This feeling of isolation and sadness went on for many years, until Mark turned 10 years old.

Action was taken…

Helen and Mark took a trip to Japan to see Helen’s parents and have a break from the challenges life in Spain involved. They had a nice time, but when it was time to return to Spain, Helen was having major doubts.

They ended up returning directly to the UK instead of going back to Spain, where Vincent still was. Helen did make Vincent aware of this before boarding the plane, and feeling very nervous Vincent called the police who intercepted Helen and Mark when they landed in the UK.

Seeing that the child was perfectly fine, the two of them were released. They went to Birmingham to stay with a friend of Helen’s.

What happened next?

Vincent, concerned and surprised, came back to the UK to try and sort out the issues. He still very much wants Mark to live with him in Spain. He took Helen to court and asked for Mark to be able to go back to Spain to live with him.

Due to English not being her first language, and her knowledge of the law not having much depth, Helen turned to us to learn what options she had.

Helen’s worry was made worse as she knew the odds were stacked against her. Mark had spent most of his time in Spain, and so the judge would surely see that as a sign that he should return there with his father. Helen was worried she would hardly ever be able to see her son.

A complex case…

This case is complicated as it involves both UK law and Spanish law. Due to the fact that Mark was born in the UK but spent many of his childhood years in Spain, the Spanish courts have the right to make the final decision on where he should stay. Of course, they will take the UK courts opinion into consideration as well.

However, since Vincent filed a lawsuit in the UK court, under the Hague Convention, the court has its jurisdiction to decide whether or not to order that Mark return to Spain, as his habitual residence. However, the UK court’s jurisdiction is limited. The discretion is very narrow on grounds of intolerability of the child and the carer (the mother), should they to return to Spain; and the child’s objection to return, although subject to suitability of age. (Here Mark is still too young for his objection to carry much weight).

What can we do?

First of all, we need to collect various bits of evidence to prove that Helen is, and has always been, the primary caregiver of Mark. This can come in the form of photos, phone call records, various relevant data and records of school life, Mark’s medical records, and so on. This is an integral part of Helen’s case.

Since Vincent is so often working long hours and had previously been out of the country for work, his role in the family is more of a financial one, whereas the actual day to day care of Mark has been largely handled by Helen. If it would be intolerable for Helen to return, or if she could not return, then it will most certainly be intolerable for Mark to return.

Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service

A second important point is that Helen obeyed the court arrangement and took Mark to give a psychological report to CAFCASS (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service).

The results show that if Mark suddenly loses his mother’s care completely, it will most probably be intolerable for Mark’s to live his normal life upon return. He has spent far more time with his mother than his father and her presence in his life is paramount.

The report also clearly found that Mark would prefer to stay in the UK with his mother.

Mother’s mental health and immigration barrier

The third point is that Spain was completely unacceptable and inhabitable to Helen, and led her to suffer severe mental torture and fear to an intolerable level. In fact, according to the relevant legal test, her fear to go back needs not to be objectively real, as long as the court found her fear is subjectively genuine, it is acceptable that it would be intolerable for her to return.

In addition, our immigration expertise made valuable contribution to the case as we found that without a valid status, it is not possible for Helen to stay in the UK legally and she had to return to Japan. If that is the case, it would be impossible for Mark to visit her often enough and it would be almost certain that the situation would be intolerable for Mark.

Father’s history:

Another part of the case that the court had to take into consideration was the fact that Vincent has had a family in the past, and his child has had a child, making Vincent a grandfather. Vincent’s grandson lives in Birmingham and has become a friend to Mark. This means that Mark has a relative in Birmingham, adding to the case that he should in fact remain in the UK.

The result…

In summary, for the best interests of the child, the judge ruled that although Mark would have to return to Spain with Vincent, he shall visit the UK to live with Helen every weekend, which is an exercise of a discretion very much in Helen’s favour, thanks to our immigration expertise incorporating her immigration status and needs. The court indeed also specifically permitted this order to be disclosed for Helen’s immigration status for the ease of her immigration application.

What we want to emphasize here is that because Mark’s main residence is still officially Spain, according to international law, the right to determine the contact and custody of Mark is actually the Spanish court; British courts have limited power in this decision, albeit with directory effect, which is very important for future proceeding in Spain.

However, as it is in the child’s voluntary choice to be with his mother in the UK, and if the child and mother are separated for long periods of time it would cause unbearable anguish for them both, we were able to win the court over to this shared custody.

This result came as a great relief to Helen, who was worried that she would get to see her son a lot less frequently.

What should Helen do next?

It must be noted that Helen returned to the UK from Japan this time with a visitor visa.

Many people know that the party holding a British visitor visa cannot stay in the UK for more than 180 days (6 months).

However, since Mark was born in the UK, Helen can actually consider applying for a more permanent visa through her child’s British status. Therefore, Helen can actually try to apply for a parental visa.

But of course, if she wants to apply for a parent visa, Helen must meet the relevant requirements, that is:

have sufficient financial conditions to support her and her child’s life in the UK,
have enough housing,
pass the English A1 test,
prove that she can personally and directly contact the child (Direct access in person), and
prove that she intends to continue to play an active role in raising and educating the child.

As long as she can meet these requirements, she should be able to attain the parental visa and be able to stay in the UK on a permanent basis!

Any questions? Contact us!

Our team here at Lisa’s Law is highly knowledgeable in this area. If you have any questions relating to this topic, or have any other legal enquiry, please do not hesitate to contact us on 020 7928 0276 or email into info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Client receives HUGE unexpected bill leading to a true David vs Goliath success story!

Life can be full of unwelcome surprises.

Picture the scene:

A businessman rents out a premises from their local council, paying them rent and believing that the energy bills are included in that rent. They have never received a bill and have always assumed that the landlord takes care of it.

Once they have moved out of that property, out of the blue they are hit with a massive energy bill from a major UK energy provider, asking them to pay a huge amount of money for the energy they used throughout their time at the premises. Not only this, but interest has been added to the already massive cost.

Well, this is exactly what happened to one of our recent clients. It was our job to help him during his time of need, and we are proud of the outcome we managed to achieve for him.

The case in question:

For confidentiality purposes some of the details will be altered in this article, but it is all based upon an original case. We will refer to the client as Mr Cronin.

Mr Cronin runs a business in Sheffield, leasing out a space from the local government. When he first signed this lease, the local government had added a section which stated the tenant must also pay a regular ‘service fee’ on top of the agreed monthly rental payments. He assumed that this would cover the energy costs, and this belief was affirmed in his mind when he never received any separate energy bills throughout his tenancy.

After a few years of operating his business out of this property, the government notify Mr Cronin that he must leave, as there is a planned demolition of the building to make way for new developments.

Mr Cronin left the premises, and set out to continue his business elsewhere. That’s when he was hit with the giant energy bill, which came completely out of nowhere.

The energy provider demanded 2 years-worth of energy bills, and sent an official request letter. If Mr Cronin were unable to respond to the request letter, the next step is would be both parties attending a court hearing, resulting in a judge deciding the matter.

Extra costs can start to stack up when cases such as this reach court unsettled, which is why Mr Cronin turned to us for help.

Assessing the situation:

The amount that the energy provider was initially asking of our client was £50,000. A mighty sum indeed. However, they did concede to accepting £28,000 if it was paid up front. Still a very large bill to face on unexpected terms.

Preparing a defence:

One of the first things we noticed was that Mr Cronin was being charged for energy used for a period after he had already vacated the premises. This is obviously not his responsibility and he should not be made to pay for energy used during this time.

In order to prove this, we provided the lease contract between Mr Cronin and the local government, and a letter of notification from the local government informing Mr Cronin that the property is to be demolished. After they received this, this part of the bill was disregarded by all.

Second to this, we proposed that Mr Cronin had not received any energy bills during his tenancy, and that it had only been made clear that he owed money after he had already vacated the property.

It is due to the lack of correspondence between Mr Cronin and the energy provider that we argued that there was no official contractual relationship between the two parties. Mr Cronin always assumed that the additional ‘service fee’ that he was paying would take care of the energy bills.

A happy ending?

In the end, the energy supplier agreed to allow Mr Cronin to resolve the dispute with a figure of £10,000. This would be the entirety of the payment, with no further payments down the road. This payment will also mean that there is no judicial follow up for either parties.

It should be noted that this is a good result for Mr Cronin; in addition to avoiding the arrears that were too high to bear in the first place, he also avoided a lawsuit with a major energy provider in the event of a loss.

If the two parties had not come to some agreement before facing the courts, the result would have been far worse for Mr Cronin and at the very least more of an inconvenience for the energy provider. Financially, Cronin would have had to pay a lot more in legal fees, and the energy provider would obviously have the means to hire an expensive team of specialist lawyers – it would have been needlessly stressful and it is much better to get it sorted in advance.

When you think that the total cost was initially £50,000, and then the possibility of that increasing to around £100,000 if you consider legal fees if it went to court unsettled and even got defeated, the final payment of £10,000 is actually a very successful compromise for Mr Cronin.

What can we learn from this case?

As a lesson from the above case, we want to remind all readers who are running a business that when signing a commercial lease contract they should first carefully understand what the terms of the contract are and what it is they are paying for. Ask as many questions as you need to fully understand the situation. If anything is made unclear, do not sign the contract until it has been made clear.

In the case of service charges, these will usually go towards things such as the buildings general upkeep, and does not necessarily include any individual’s energy bills.

However, one positive that this case really highlights is the fact that no matter how unlikely a victory seems, it is always worth trying anyway. Mr Cronin came to us to challenge a huge energy provider, and in his case the underdog came out on top.

Here at Lisa’s Law we will fight your corner no matter what, and will always be upfront and practical in the advice we give.

Any other questions? Contact us!

Our team here at Lisa’s Law is ready to receive your instruction. If you have any questions relating to this topic, or have any other legal enquiry, please do not hesitate to contact us on 020 7928 0276 or email into info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Subletting Chaos – what could go wrong without a landlord’s permission?

Like all areas of business, things do not always go to plan in the world of conveyancing. It is always important to know exactly what you are getting into, and what type of people you are dealing with before even thinking about entering into a contractual agreement. Subletting, a popular way for tenants to let part or all of their home to someone else, is one of these areas that requires careful consideration.

This isn’t always as easy as it sounds.

One unlucky businessman faced losing over £90K after he was caught in a subletting scam, and while we cannot blame him for being enthusiastic about getting his new venture underway there are certainly some more cautious steps that he could have taken to avoid the mess he has found himself in.

The case in question:

The case today concerns two restaurateurs, Mr Choi and Mr Park. Looking to start a new business in Kingston upon Thames, Mr Choi entered into a subletting agreement with Mr Park, whereby Park would sublet a commercial premises to Choi in exchange for funds.

What Choi was not aware was the fact that Park had not received permission for this sublet from the property’s landlord. This is a vital part of any subletting. The lack of permission can make it an illegal deal.

Choi paid a fee of £60,000 plus a monthly payment of £9,500 to Park for the use of the property. On top of this, Choi redecorated and rebranded the property, calling it Big Burger. He put much effort, care and money into what he thought was a legitimate property from which to run his business.

Of course, when the landlord found out that Park had been subletting the premises to Choi, he retook possession of it and essentially kicked Choi out.

Choi then also found out that Park had lied to him about the lease length, by which the lease was due to run for only less than 5 years instead of ‘16 years’ that Park had claimed.

What happened next?

Choi claimed that he had entered into the agreement with Park to rent the premises, pending assignment of the lease, as a consequence of false statements made by Park, and that he had, consequently, suffered a hefty financial loss.

Park did not take this lying down. He contended, among other things, that:

he had not been acting in his personal capacity when he had entered into the agreement with Choi;

Choi had been aware that the agreement was an illegal sublet, not an assignment of the lease; and

he had simply expressed a willingness to assign the lease at some point in the future, subject to payment of the rent

What claims did Choi bring against Park?

There were a total of 5 claims brought against Park. They were:

fraudulent misrepresentation

breach of contract, said to be implied into the agreement;

a total failure of consideration (a financial claim in respect of the payments made to the defendants);

quantum meruit (a financial claim for the return of the value of works Choi had carried out at the premises); and

unlawful means of conspiracy

The results:

Obviously there was some back and forth contesting between the two parties, but essentially in the end Park was judged with not giving Choi the full picture, therefore misleading him into accepting the unlawful agreement.

The law is well established in dealing with cases such as this. It states:

‘Where a person has entered into a contract after a misrepresentation has been made to him by another party thereto and as a result thereof he has suffered loss, then, if the person making the misrepresentation would be liable to damages… unless he proves that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made the facts represented were true’

If Choi have had access to all the correct information, it was held by the Court that he would never have entered into the deal. It cost him dearly, both financially and mentally. As a consequence of the false statements made by Park, Choi had suffered loss. Therefore, Choi’s claim for misrepresentation succeeded and he was able to regain his money, a sum of £91,532.52.

What can we learn from this subletting case?

There are a few lessons we can learn from this case, mainly concerning the importance of due diligence in business transactions and serious consequences it may lead to in failing to do so.

If a person is deceived, such as the case with Choi in the above case, they are normally able to sue the person who misled them. In this case, Mr Park was the deceiver as he had provided false statements in order to convince Choi to enter into a contract with him.

But it is not always as easy as that.

Even if the innocent party is found to be due compensation from their deceiver, he/she may not be compensated for various reasons. The deceiver may have vanished (say, moving to other part of the world), or simply not have the means to pay up (such as becoming bankrupt). This can potentially lead to the innocent party spending even more time and money, and experiencing more stress, for essentially no reward.

The most effective preventive measure is always not to enter a business transaction unless you have carried out sufficient background check, to know the business, the property and the person. Should Mr Choi have done so, or engaged a lawyer to do so, he would have found the remaining term of the lease and whether permission was required from the landlord, rather than relying on Mr Parker’s misstatement. He would not definitely have rushed into the transaction and found himself experiencing so much hassle and trouble. It is purely a matter of chance to some extent that Mr Choi has managed to recover his loss.

What else could Mr Choi do if he was unable to recover his losses from Mr Park?

In theory, Mr Choi might be able to apply to the Court to intervene. One possibility would be for the landlord to forfeit the lease and grant it to Mr Choi, provided that the landlord is satisfied that Mr Choi is a person of good standing.

However, it should note that such action is more down to the landlord’s discretion, rather than Mr Choi’s right. Unless Mr Choi has evidence to prove that the landlord had been aware that he was trading in the property as a tenant (in fact, in this case, Mr Choi had none of such evidence), the landlord could well refuse his request. Even if the landlord is willing to grant a new lease to Mr Choi, clearly he/she will expect Mr Choi to bear all the relevant costs, which is likely not to be low.

How to correctly contract a sublet?

When trying to contract a sublet, it is vital that you first read the initial lease thoroughly to see whether any approval is required (in most cases, the answer is a yes). If so, no subletting can be lawfully made without such approval.

The last thing you want to do is risking it . It is not worth it and the chances of being found out can be very high.

The landlord will then have right to repossess the property and evict you. You may lose not only the monies you have paid to the tenant, but also all your investment in promoting the business, your time and energy.

Once you know the landlord’s approval is required, you need to provide evidence of your relevant trading experience, credit rating, business plan and even immigration history for the landlord’s consideration.

Although a landlord has right to decide how he can let into his/her property, most leases will provide that he/she cannot refuse such approval unreasonably; otherwise, the outgoing tenant can challenge him/her.

Once the approval is granted, it will be prudent to have a lawyer to check out thoroughly about the property, business and the contracts so that there will be no other issues which may affect your business in the future.

Any other issues? Contact us!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

December 2, 2019
Business, Case Study, Immigration, Law, Tax, Tax Avoidance

Tax avoidance case successfully handled! Client saves over £70,000!

The running of a business can take its toll. From balancing finances, looking after staff, providing a good service and everything in-between, it is no wonder that thousands of business owners in the UK frequently experience high levels of stress!

That stress is multiplied tenfold when you are accused of running your business in an illegal manner, which is exactly what happened to a client we recently worked with.

Lisa’s Law recently handled a tax case that had been the bane of a business owner’s life for over three years. So much of his time and energy had been going towards sorting this issue out, that he felt he was losing control of his life.

For the purposes of this article, we will refer to the client as Arjun.

Details of the case:

Arjun is originally from India and owns a restaurant in the UK. The first time his restaurant was visited by the HMRC it was because they were accusing him of deliberately declaring less cash earnings in order to pay less tax on the revenue made by his business.

Investigators from the tax bureau found that the restaurant had deliberately not filed the cash revenues in the past tax years in order to escape the VAT, and the restaurant also had violations of Corporate Tax as a result of under-declared VAT sales.

As a result of this serious accusation, Arjun was looking at a huge bill to pay; over £100,000 worth of taxes, interest and penalties, plus HMRC legal costs that would need to be accounted for if left uncontested.

Arjun explained that part of the issue was that a former employee of his had been stealing cash and not running it through the register correctly, so it was hard for him to keep track of the exact cash income of his restaurant.

As you can understand, this left Arjun with a considerable burden on his shoulders, which is why he turned to our litigation team for help. Not only was he worried about the financial side of this issue, but even more so the criminal side of it, as he may be held liable for VAT and tax fraud after the HMRC claims for back payment. His immigration status and livelihood would be affected massively if he was accused of this crime.

Cash as a percentage of total income:

It is important to remember that the HMRC is interested in specifically the cash takings of the business in this case. The HRMC estimated that cash dealings amounted to around 25% of the total income of the restaurant. This amount was agreed to when Arjun was questioned by HRMC representatives which was under duress, as he was pressurised into answering the questions without legal or accounting advice.

Also, the HRMC saw that within the local area of Arjun’s restaurant, similar establishments take in around a 30% cash income as well, which they use in favour of their argument.

Lisa’s Law to the rescue:

This case had been dragging on for a few years and was really negatively impacting Arjun’s life; the stress of it was impacting on his mental health. He suffered from anxiety and depression. He lost interest in running his business and was not keen on building a future.

Arjun was recommended Lisa’s Law by a friend and we immediately set to work on establishing a couple of things that would work in his favour:

Make it clear the Arjun did not deliberately fail to declare taxes.

and,

Reduce the percentage of cash income expected by the HRMC, meaning a decrease in the total of what Arjun must pay overall.

What we argued:

Firstly, we put forward that the initial estimate that both the HRMC and Arjun came to, in terms of the percentage of cash income generated by the business, of around 25%, was reached in speculative terms which were unfair to Arjun.

Arjun was not allowed to seek professional help from an accountant or law firm, and was subject to high pressure questions by the HRMC representatives. This meant that an important part of the case made against Arjun is actually invalid.

We argue that the cash income is actually much lower than 25% in the case of Arjun’s business.

To back up our claim, we referred to an official survey issued by UK Finance, the UK Payments Market Survey 2019.

Within this survey it is made clear that cash dealings within Arjun’s industry has declined in recent years, and that the 25% estimate made by the HRMC over a number of years is unrealistic.

This support from a credible third party helped us to convince the HRMC to reassess their cash percentage evaluation.

Deliberate or simply unaware?

Determining whether Arjun was deliberately not declaring the correct amount of income or if it was something he was unaware of is arguably the most vital part of this case. It dictates whether it is seen as criminal activity, or just simple careless. It also makes a vast difference in what Arjun will have to pay at the end of the case.

We put forward that because Arjun spends most of his time in the back of the restaurant preparing food, he was unable to properly supervise his staff. This led to one of his employees to begin stealing cash from the till. In turn, this led to incorrect amounts being submitted to the tax officials.

Success

After presenting this evidence to the HRMC, they eventually conceded that Arjun was only guilty of ‘Failure to take Reasonable Care’ rather than planned tax evasion. This is a much better result for him in every way imaginable, and means he is not seen as a criminal in the eyes of the law.

Further to this, the tax bureau’s determination of Arjun’s cash income was eventually compromised at 18%, instead of the original 25%.

This meant that rather than paying over £100,000 in bills and damages, Arjun had to pay a far smaller amount of £30,000. This is also a sum that he felt he was able to pay. If he had not been able to meet this payment, he could have also negotiated a payment arrangement with HMRC through Lisa’s Law to spread his liabilities over a period of time. This would avoid bankruptcy for himself and his business. This is a resounding success for Arjun and for us here at Lisa’s Law!

What can we learn from this case?

In cases such as this often the main focus is to minimise the damage taken by the client, in terms of not only financial woes but reputational effects too.

Co-operation with the tax bureau is necessary, however clear and detailed evidence to support the client’s claims, and try to work out the best deal possible. This is especially important when trying to dissuade the HRMC from considering the case a criminal act or not. It is very likely that when demands are met and the client is no longer considered a criminal, the fees to be paid will be reduced. Being co-operative with HMRC is also important, as they will be more willing to consider the defence and work out a mutual resolution.

It is often very easy to make mistakes when doing your taxes, particularly in the hectic food industry. When a problem becomes apparent it is always best to face it head on with support from professionals.

The best way to do this is to have a rigorous bookkeeping system and always take care and time when sorting through taxes. As well as Lisa’s Law, we also have Lisa’s Accountancy who offer excellent professional advice when it comes to doing taxes correctly.

You can reach them on 020 7096 2722 or email them at info@lisastax.co.uk.

Contact us!

If you have any questions about this, or just want to have a chat about any legal issue whatsoever, please do not hesitate to get in contact with us on 020 7928 0276 or email in to info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

We are here for you!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Sole Representative of an Overseas Company Visa – The Do’s and Don’ts

Sole Representative is a UK visa category allowing an employee/member of an organisation to enter the UK as a representative of an overseas company for the purpose of establishing a wholly owned subsidiary or branch in the UK for the overseas parent company. This visa has become a very common and famous choice for corporate organisations and new entrepreneurs with businesses abroad.

This visa option is vital for any non-European or non-UK national business looking to invest in the UK as it will allow the employee of their business to not only enter the UK, but also set up a wholly owned subsidiary or branch of the overseas parent company.

It is very important in order to acquire a successful decision for the same, it has to be made sure that all of the set required criteria and eligibility are satisfied and met and upon presenting the sufficient evidence obtained and submitted at the time of the application.

It is also equally vital that you choose who your representative will be in advance as they are required to meet certain criteria. If your representative is an overseas national with no automatic rights to work in the UK, they are required to fulfil further criteria in order to be satisfy the requirements under this visa.

Are the objectives met?

In order to qualify for this visa category, an applicant must:

Have sufficient funds to support themselves and their dependants (if applicable) in the UK – termed as maintenance;
Had passed the test for satisfying the English language requirement;
Applicant must have extensive knowledge and expertise in the particular business or work industry;
Must be held on a senior position within the company, but not as a majority shareholder.
Authorised to make decisions on behalf of the organisation or company;
An applicant must be employed for the company outside the UK, whose headquarters and principal place of business are outside the UK for at least a period of 12 months, prior to submitting the visa application.
They must not intend to undertake any other work or business except the current one in the UK.
Also last but not the least is that they are intending to establish the company’s first commercial presence in the UK, e.g. a registered branch or a wholly-owned subsidiary.

Is there a minimum salary requirement for the sole representative?

Where there isn’t any minimum salary level requirement to be satisfied, however the applicant must be earning enough to support themselves and their family members/dependents for this application. The remuneration or the pay should reflect their appropriate skills, experience and knowledge. They are not eligible to receive any public funds whatsoever.

Who can be the so-called dependents of a Sole Representative applicant in the UK?

Dependents include:

Spouse
Civil Partner
Unmarried Partner
Same-sex Partner
Your child or child who is under the age of 18

Is there possibility for an extension of a Sole Representative Visa after the initial application within the UK?

After the initial grant of the visa as a Representative of an Overseas Business, for the period of 3 years; there is possibility if the further extension of the same visa for next 2 years.

To enable for this extension, it is very important for an applicant to still meeting the requirements continue to demonstrate to act as sole representative for the same overseas company. Followed on after which they will be able to apply for their settlement after the completion of 5 years in the UK.

Can a Sole Representative applicant apply for the Indefinite Leave to Remain?

After the completion of 5 years in the UK, the applicant and their dependent(s) could apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain (settlement or Permanent Residency) on the condition that they are still continuing to meet with the criteria above.

What are the DO’s and the DON’T’S under the sole representative visa?

DO’s

Applicant can work full time for the employer;
Can apply and bring their family (‘dependants’) to the UK;
The applicant can make the extension for the said visa multiple times;
Applicant can also apply for the settlement in the UK after 5 years;
They can remain in the UK even if the company’s circumstances change and they have been in the UK for more than 2 years.

DON’T’S:

The applicant cannot be employed for themselves or any other employment or company except the one they are working for;
The applicant cannot continue to live and remain in the UK, even after the employment contract as their sole representative arrangement is ended by the employer;
They applicant cannot switch to this visa category in-country or out of the country whatsoever from any other visa category;
The applicant is not eligible to receive any kind of benefits or government public funds.

Contact us!

We are here for you!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Family reunions – A success story from Lisa’s Law

To be separated from your family for a long time is one of the hardest and most heart-breaking ordeals a person can go through. This is heightened when it is a parent who is separated from their child, with hardly any means of reuniting.

Even when the child grows to be almost 18, in the eyes of the parent they are still there to be taken care of and made safe. Yet, in the eyes of the Home Office this is not the case. This means that in a case where a parent is applying for their child to come to the UK in order to be reunited, once that child turns 18 the chances of success plummet like a lead balloon. Time is truly of the essence.

We recently had a case where a parent wanted to have his child come to the UK after years of separation, and it was made all the more urgent by the imminent 18^th birthday of said child.

The case in question:

In order to keep the identity of our client’s private, we will call the father in this case Paul and his son James.

Paul holds a formal refugee status in the UK and claims to have come to the UK initially as a victim of human trafficking. When he first arrived he applied for refugee status and mentioned in his application that he had a child back in his home country of the Philippines. This application was never replied to.

After waiting for about two years, Paul submitted the application again, and after several years of waiting, was confirmed by the Home Office to be a victim of human trafficking. After this was confirmed, he received official refugee status.

After 10 years of living in the UK, Paul was granted settled status and his main priority now is getting his son to the UK so they can finally be together again.

The 10 year wait:

Before getting the official settled status, Paul did not dare to leave the United Kingdom for fear that it would affect his application in a negative way. This means the separation between the father and the son lasted for more than 10 years.

Of course while Paul was in the UK, James was back in the Philippines growing up. So much time flew past that the boy who was separated from his father all those years ago is now nearly a man in the eyes of the law; his 18^th birthday only a couple of months away.

What occurred?

Throughout this 10 year period, James lived in the Philippines with his grandparents (the parents of Paul, his mother sadly passed away many years ago). While the grandparents enjoyed taking care of James, they are growing old themselves and may need care in the future.

Paul sent money back to James in order to support him, and they frequently spoke on the phone and through text message. Paul gave advice and always had a major input in every decision regarding James’ upbringing.

Proof and circumstances:

Taking into consideration the above, there are some key elements present that point to this case being successful, and that can be seen as guidelines for others looking to pursue a similar cause.

For example: Although Paul and James have not lived together for a long time, Paul still has the responsibility to support his James and must have an ‘active role’ in his life – considering the case under the ‘sole responsibility aspect’.

So, Paul must provide sufficient evidence to prove that James’ financial stability and direction of education etc. is very much in Paul’s control. This can be done by looking at bank transfers, transcripts of conversations, copies of texts and emails between Paul and James, the grandparents and James’ teachers back in the Philippines.

All this shows Paul’s concern with the development of James, meaning he is active in the child’s life.

Another circumstance is the ageing of James’ grandparents who currently look after him. This becomes a factor in favour of James coming to the UK, as soon they will be too old to take care of him effectively.

All-important DNA test

For this case we felt that it was necessary to prove a blood relation between the two parties, so we arranged James and Paul to have their DNA taken and compared, so that the Home Office could have no doubt of their relation.

It is important to note that the Home Office only accepts DNA results from endorsed DNA testing facilities. The list is always being updated, which you can see here: https://www.gov.uk/get-dna-test.

Success!

After all of the above was taken into consideration, and the positive results were sent back from the DNA facility we are pleased to report that the application was approved and Paul and James have been happily reunited!

What can we learn from this case?

Through this case, we can know that often there is much complexity and difficulty involved in cases of this nature.

Especially in the very critical situations (for instance in this case, the child is about to turn 18 years old), you need to be cautious in preparing for such applications, and strike while there is still time to make a difference.

If the applicant is experiencing any uncertainty when preparing for an application, it is best to contact and consult a professional lawyer as early as possible, and try to give themselves enough time to prepare; this will also be more helpful for the lawyers who take the case on.

Contact us!

If you are interested in cases such as this, or just want to have a chat about any legal issue whatsoever, please do not hesitate to get in contact with us on 020 7928 0276 or email in to info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

We are here for you!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Welcome Stephanie!

We have some really great news from our London offices to share with you; recently we have welcomed Stephanie Chiu into our ranks!

Stephanie joins us as a Paralegal and is really excited to learn on the job and develop her skills within the legal profession.

Stephanie is originally from Hong Kong and recently completed her LLB degree from the University of Kent.

She spent a year working for the Citizens Advice Centre and also has gained experience by completing some law internships back in Hong Kong, during which she was involved in cases concerning property, criminal and family law.

In her spare time Stephanie enjoys playing badminton, and she is fluent in English, Cantonese and Mandarin.

Welcome to the team, Stephanie!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Administrative review – who, what, how?

If you have been denied a UK visa, an Administrative Review is a way to challenge the decision of the Home Office. Your application will be reviewed by a Home Office official. However, you must be aware that you cannot submit any new evidence in order to challenge the decision or rectify the shortcomings at the time of the initial application.

What kind of visa applications have the option of administrative review?

in country Tier 4 applications made on or after 20 October 2014 by either a main applicant or dependant
in country Tiers 1, 2 or 5 applications made on or after 2 March 2015 by either a main applicant or dependant, including indefinite leave to remain applications under those routes
in country applications where the decision was made on or after 6 April, unless the applicant applied as a visitor or made a protection or human rights claim

You can ask for your application to be reviewed if one of the following apply:

your application was refused
your application was granted but you’re unhappy with the amount or conditions of your leave

If you’re outside the UK, you can only ask for an administrative review if all of the following apply:

you’re outside the UK
you applied outside the UK
your application was refused on or after 6 April 2015
you do not have a right of appeal against the refusal
you did not make an application as a visitor or a short term student

How to apply for administrative review?

If your application was refused, you must apply for an administrative review within 14 days of getting the decision if you’re in the UK, within 28 days if you’re outside the UK.

Your refusal letter will tell you how to apply. You may be able to apply online. It costs £80.

You must apply within 7 days if you’ve been detained.

If your application was granted but you’re unhappy with the amount or conditions of your leave, you must email the Home Office within 14 days of getting your biometric residence permit.

Important things to remember…

The decision will be checked for the errors you point out.

Do not send the Home Office new information or documents for review unless you’ve been asked to.

You’ll usually receive the result of the administrative review within 28 days. You cannot request a second review (unless the result included new reasons why you were refused).

If your visa’s expired, you will not usually be removed from the UK until your review has been completed.

Your request will be withdrawn if you…

make any other immigration or visa application
ask for your passport back so you can travel
leave the UK

Other things to think about…

More often than not, applicants will not be removed from the UK until their review has been completed.

However, if they ask for a review but the Home Office position is that its outcome would not make a difference to the decision to remove/deport them, a review will not prevent removal taking place.

This includes if they are facing automatic deportation or their case is a national security case.

Potential outcomes of Administrative Review:

If an Administrative Review is successful, the initial decision may be withdrawn. If it is not successful, the initial decision may remain as it was, with the reasons for the decision either being the same as before, altered, or added to.

What if you don’t agree with the decision?

You can seek a judicial review if you’re not satisfied with your administrative review result. We will discuss more about it in our future articles.

More information relating to appeals can also be found here: Home Office can make serious errors, but how can we deal with them?

Contact us!

Please do not hesitate to get in contact with us on 020 7928 0276 or email in to info@lisaslaw.co.uk if you have any legal enquiries at all.

We are here for you!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

November 19, 2019
Appeals, Home Office, Immigration, Mistake, Refusal, Visa

Home Office can make serious errors, but how can we deal with them?

A recent Home Office blunder meant that a man was refused leave to remain to care for his terminally ill partner.

The Home Office denied O’Neill Wallfall’s application because he could not prove that ‘travelling back to the Iraq would put his life at risk’.

However, Wallfall, as a Jamaican national who had come to the UK in 2002, had never even been to Iraq. This refusal was clearly based on a Home Office employee copy and pasting a reply meant for someone else.

This has attracted some attention, as it is worrying that Home Office officials would be so careless in their work. The error was made toward the end of the refusal letter, in which they had already stated that it was not unreasonable to assume his partner could relocate to Jamaica and receive healthcare there. It was a clear mismatch of information.

We must remember that the Home Office is made up of humans…

…and humans make mistakes! It is well known that the Home Office is regularly understaffed and deal with an extremely high amount of applications. They are given targets to meet and frequently are working in a high pressure environment.

As a law firm dealing with a variety of cases, we are not surprised when we hear of mistakes such as these being made by the Home Office.

However, it does not excuse them and there are options available to people who find themselves being refused for incorrect or unclear reasons.

Can you appeal?

You potentially qualify for an appeal if the Home Office has:

refused your protection claim (also known as ‘asylum claim’ or ‘humanitarian protection’)
refused your human rights claim
made a decision under the European Economic Area (EEA) Regulations, for example the Home Office has decided to deport you or refused to issue you a residence document
decided to revoke your protection status
decided to take away your British citizenship

If you are not informed of your right to an appeal, do not worry. There are still some other options available to you such as administrative reviews and judicial reviews which we will be covering in articles to come.

Appeals:

You have the chance to appeal any decision that the Home Office makes against you. You have 14 days to appeal after the date of your decision.

Applying online is always the quickest option, you can find the relevant documents on this page. If not, you can post or fax your appeal.

Ask for an oral hearing

You can ask on your appeal form for a decision to be made either:

just on the information in your appeal form and any documents supplied to the tribunal
at a hearing that you or your representative can attend

The tribunal can decide to have a hearing even if you do not ask for one. You’ll be told if this is the case and invited to attend.

Fees

It costs:

£80 without a hearing
£140 with a hearing

How to pay:

You can pay your fee with a credit or debit card when you make your appeal online or by including your details on your appeal form.

If you’ve already made your appeal you can also pay your fee online.

Is your appeal urgent?

You need to write to the tribunal with:

the reason why your case should be heard urgently
evidence of compelling or compassionate grounds, for example letters from a doctor or hospital

Your case will be reviewed by a judge, who will then decide whether you should be heard sooner than usual.

Contact us!

If you are confused or just want to have a chat about any of the above please do not hesitate to get in contact with us on 020 7928 0276 or email in to info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

We are here for you!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

Success story from Lisa’s Law – Settlement visa attained for mother and child

The overarching reason why Lisa’s Law exists is because we want to help people. Whether this be supporting someone just starting out to get their first business up and running or assisting a family in moving into their first home, we aim to be a pillar of support throughout the entire journey.

We recently had a touching case come through, and we are really pleased with how it turned out.

Names and details of the case have been altered to respect our client’s privacy.

The case in question…

A mother of a 14 year old girl is applying for settlement on the basis that her child is a British Citizen who cannot live independently and requires her full support and care.

For the purposes of this article we will refer to the mother in this case as Claire and her daughter as Daisy.

The applicants past…

Claire is originally from China and was originally granted an Entry Clearance visa in 2002 as a Tier 4 (General) Student, which was valid until December 2006.

Claire met a Mr David Yung, who is the biological father of Daisy, in January 2006. She applied for further leave as a skilled worker before her original leave expired, but this was denied.

Claire fell pregnant before her application was denied and subsequently stayed in the UK another year, giving birth to Daisy in 2007. Then she took the voluntary option to return to China with her child.

Claire then returned to the UK with her daughter a few years later on a visitor visa to visit Mr Yung. While here, she reapplied for further leave to remain on the basis of her relationship with Mr Yung (a British citizen) and as Daisy’s (a British citizen by birth) primary caregiver. During this time Mr Yung passed away.

This application was refused as Claire had changed address and failed to receive the necessary materials in time. She therefore returned to China with her daughter.

What happened next?

Claire and Daisy moved to New Zealand where Claire worked as a chef, earning a respectable wage of around £30,000. Daisy is in possession of a British passport on account of her being born in Newcastle.

Success at last!

Still wishing to settle in the UK they reignited their application once more. This time with the help of a friend in the UK.

Claire was offered a full time position as a receptionist for a construction firm, which would earn her £23,500 a year. More than the £18,600 minimum requirement. This means they are financially independent, requiring no help from the state.

What’s more, the same friend who offered her the job has provided Claire with a place to stay, which is fit for both her and Daisy to live in.

Claire also passed the English requirement test (A1 level IELTS).

So, finally after many years of trying Claire and Daisy were able to settle in the UK. A happy ending at last!

Problems and solutions…

This case was complex due to a few reasons. Getting a carer visa is very difficult at the best of times as the Home Office is always wary of people trying to get one under fake pretences. This is why we had to be militant in providing evidence that the relationship between the mother and daughter was strong and long lasting, and that they had a proven history of living together as a family. We made sure the correct mixture of proof was presented to the Home Office.

It is very important that the immigration officer sees that the parent is taking an ‘active role’ in the child’s upbringing and planning to continue after the application, so proof of financial as well as spiritual care is important. This can be images of trips together, proof of providing school equipment and clothes etc. Letters from the child’s school and GP/dentist confirming the parent take the child to school/appointments or go to parent evenings can be helpful as well.

Another important part of getting this type of visa is the ability to proving the applicant can look after themselves and the child without claiming any benefits or relying on the state for housing. You need to be earning at least £18,600 and have a suitable place to live, which is not too small and cramped, or run down, which has suitable sleeping areas for all who live there.

What’s more is that in our particular case discussed above, the mother and daughter had already been living in New Zealand which is an English speaking country. It is sometimes easier to win cases such as this if the family are living in a country which is further removed from the UK (or whichever country the applicant wants to settle in). This is because it would be more difficult and harsh on the child to try to adapt to a land so different from the one they were born in. So, it was fortunate that in this case the Home Office did not challenge this too much, and chose to focus on what would be truly best for the child.

Solo guardianship of the child could not be questioned, as the biological father of Daisy had already passed away. Circumstance such as these can sometimes evoke compassion from the Home Office.

The role of Lisa’s Law:

It is a very complicated business, as you can see from the story above, to actually be successful in your journey to settlement. You need someone who knows what the Home Office is looking for, someone who knows immigration law like the back of their hands, to ensure that the right documents are submitted and the correct information is given. Otherwise it is like walking through a minefield with a blindfold on!

In this case we made sure that all necessary and original documents were submitted to the Home Office in a timely and organised manner, leaving no excuse for things to be missed or any incorrect information to slip in.

Contact us!

We are ready and well equipped to handle your case, with specialist solicitors just a phone call away, so feel free to call us on 020 7928 0276 or email into info@lisaslaw.co.uk if you need any legal advice.

For more legal news and updates be sure to follow us on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube!

lisaslaw@web

See Full Bio

News and Insights

The case in question:

The beginning of trouble…

Action was taken…

What happened next?

A complex case…

What can we do?

Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service

Mother’s mental health and immigration barrier

Father’s history:

The result…

What should Helen do next?

Any questions? Contact us!

The case in question:

Assessing the situation:

Preparing a defence:

A happy ending?

What can we learn from this case?

Any other questions? Contact us!

The case in question:

What happened next?

What claims did Choi bring against Park?

The results:

What can we learn from this subletting case?

What else could Mr Choi do if he was unable to recover his losses from Mr Park?

How to correctly contract a sublet?

Any other issues? Contact us!

Details of the case:

Cash as a percentage of total income:

Lisa’s Law to the rescue:

What we argued:

Deliberate or simply unaware?

Success

What can we learn from this case?

Contact us!

Are the objectives met?

Is there a minimum salary requirement for the sole representative?

Who can be the so-called dependents of a Sole Representative applicant in the UK?

Is there possibility for an extension of a Sole Representative Visa after the initial application within the UK?

Can a Sole Representative applicant apply for the Indefinite Leave to Remain?

What are the DO’s and the DON’T’S under the sole representative visa?

Contact us!

The case in question:

The 10 year wait:

What occurred?

Proof and circumstances:

All-important DNA test

Success!

What can we learn from this case?

Contact us!

What kind of visa applications have the option of administrative review?

You can ask for your application to be reviewed if one of the following apply:

If you’re outside the UK, you can only ask for an administrative review if all of the following apply:

How to apply for administrative review?

Important things to remember…

Your request will be withdrawn if you…

Other things to think about…

Potential outcomes of Administrative Review:

What if you don’t agree with the decision?

Contact us!

We must remember that the Home Office is made up of humans…

Can you appeal?

Appeals:

Ask for an oral hearing

Fees

How to pay:

Is your appeal urgent?

Contact us!

The case in question…

What happened next?

Success at last!

Problems and solutions…

The role of Lisa’s Law:

Contact us!

Subscribe to our newsletter

Subscribe Newsletter Blog Sidebar