For university study in the UK - has anyone qualified for home fees without having been resident in the UK for the full 3 years? If so what factors made the difference?

Try your question in the MBTUk part of this forum too. Lots of comments in there, but generally, not much success.

You can't. You have to have been there for the preceding three years for purposes other than education.

The only way around it is to lie (ie. use a relative's address or something) and hope you don't get caught. But if you have been in school in another country it will be impossible to lie as they will see your transcripts.

It may not be quite as black and white as that. There have been various court cases over the years where the exact circumstances of the student has been important.

Obviously lying is not an option. Making arrangements with house in the UK, visiting the UK etc to build up the best possible set of circumstances to demonstrate residency in both countries could be worthwhile.

Someone can't be resident in both countries, so I don't see how pretending to be differs from "lying". Either way it's a cheat.

Legally it appears to be an established concept.........

http://www.ukcisa.org.uk/Internation...ence-case-law/

Are the fees that different? With the £9K "cap" in England that must be close to international fees (or have they gone up to)? Scotland continues to have low fees.

I haven't had a good look around at overseas fees but the better places I had a quick look at had internation fees approx double UK fees. The other issue is that only home students are eligible for the loans system.

Yes, they are. Edinburgh University is charging tuition fees of 1,820 pounds Sterling per year for Scottish students, the full 9,000 pounds for other UK/EU students, and 13,000 pounds per year for overseas students. Cambridge will charge overseas students from 13,662 pounds per year, to over 35,000 pounds per year.

One of my work colleagues has lived away from the UK for 20+ years, neither of his sons were even born in the UK. But - because he is considered a "true" expat - that being he only ever had temporary residency in Oman, Singapore, USA and now Canada and our company recognizes him as UK employee that his sons did qualify for UK resident rates. They both applied and were accepted at Durham, Exeter and one other university (think it was York); they studied and got the IB program here in Calgary but ended up going to UBC instead.

But the vast majority on this site are not "true expats". They have immigrated to Canada as PRs, or are in the process of converting their TWPs to PR. Therefore, they are no longer considered as being "resident in the UK". And, really, since we have decided that the UK is no longer to be our "home", why should they benefit from lower tuition fees, free healthcare, and the myriad other things some people feel they should be entitled to?

You mean like index linked state pensions?

As a quick peruse of this site often reveals, there are many Brits that are "expat" out of circumstance rather than choice. So I do see an argument for entitlements.

Yes, and index-linked pensions!

I don't see that choosing to immigrate is a matter of circumstance. Nobody made you leave the UK permanently!