hereandthere

Sorry northernbird - what is Brits proposing?

northernbird

She said she meets the 3 year residency rule and she is still here in Perth with all her family.

hereandthere

OK, I just re-read the thread. Perhaps she has been living in the UK for the last three years but is currently in Perth temporarily? I don't like to talk about people when they're not online so I'll save it till you're around, Brits!

Jerseygirl

How can they do that? Surely the child's education history will be the big give away that he/she's been living overseas.

brits1

No, they were happy to take his tee subjects as they were converted into the equivalent of british requirements.

hereandthere

Yes the educational history is a key determinant. I don't know how two institutions can reach two different views, but it happens.

If the applicant has been permanently settled overseas and has not accrued the three years settled and ordinary resident status in the UK they should be classified as overseas for fees purposes.

northernbird

Yes but you will still have to pay international fees not local ones.

hereandthere

This depends on where the applicant has been settled and ordinarily resident for the three years preceding the start of the course. If it's the EEA and a few other places then you're OK. Australia is not one of these few other places, but it should be, in my opinion.

Englishmum

Between the age of 101/2 and 16 my daughter lived with us in Singapore and took her IGCSE's at an international school. We then moved on another expat posting to the USA when my spouse transferred to New York City.

My daughter didn't want to go to an American school and chose to go to a boarding school in Oxford for her 'A' levels; she stayed with my mum in half-terms and exeats (long weekend breaks). After leaving school she took a Gap Year, taking a job in a bakery/cafe in England and spent 4 months trekking around India and the Himalayas and a short spell in the US (so therefore wasn't physically in the UK/EU).

She applied to four universities; in particular I remember that the University of Southampton were the strictest at checking on my daughter's residency for the 3 years prior to the beginning of their academic year. They wrote to say that she would be regarded by the bursar's office as an international student, so I phoned them to challenge it.

They asked me to provice proof of:

1) That we still had a residence in the UK. They wanted to see a copy of rental payments for our house in Essex which we were letting via an estate agency.

2) Proof that my spouse was on an international assignment and that it was not a permanent posting overseas.

I was able to fax the info they wanted - but in the end my daughter chose to go to a different uni instead - Brunel - where they didn't ask for any such proof. Sheffield Uni also queried her UK residential status, but when I spoke with the admissions office via a phone call, they were happy with what I told them and didn't want me to fax or post the info that Southampton uni wanted.

hereandthere

Your absence from the UK was not permanent and you were able to prove that so it all worked out. The difficulty most have is that their absence is permanent and they have a hard time proving otherwise.

Englishmum

Oddly enough I do know of quite a few British expats in Singapore who became PR's (Permanent Residents) and still managed to get 'home fees' status for their kids for uni. I don't know how they did it, certainly at least one of them was running his own company and his 3 kids had spent most of their lives in Singapore - his youngest is at uni in Scotland right now on a 4 year degree course and the parents did inherit a house in Norfolk so had a residence in the UK.

My husband had to get the HR dept of his company just to write a brief statement to say that he was on a temporary assignment overseas. I do wonder if the PR's in Singapore wrote out their own letters on the company's headed notepaper?

hereandthere

I think you would be not too far from a possible explanation with this. There are several blags to get home fees but most would get found out by a determined institution. It would be hard for an institution to prove otherwise if they were given a formal letter stating the employment was temporary, but they couls always ask to see the original contract of employment.

quoll

But to get back to the original question, do you really think they would quibble about being 2 weeks short of the 3 years? If there were 2 years of A level and then a gap year with parents still established in UK, do you really think they would go "Aaah, but you are 2 weeks short?" I can see the difference for someone trying to blag their way 2 years short.

hereandthere

I'd like to say it would depend on the person assessing the fees status, but pretty much they have to stick to the rules. In your example of the applicant on a gap year - that's home fees because they were always settled and ordinarily resident in the UK and just travelling. Is that what you meant? As for two weeks/days/years the time is irrelevant, because otherwise everyone else with a few weeks out would have a case for discrimination, etc.

quoll

If they saw that someone had done the 2 year A level course, their parents were resident in UK and they had a gap year doing whatever gap year kids do with their parents still here, still paying rates, still paying income tax and staying here for the duration - do you think they would even notice that instead of being 1 September it was 15 September when they began their A level course? I really doubt it. I think there is a real difference where the family are elsewhere but the kid is in UK on their own studying - this isnt the case in discussion here. I'd like to think that there would be consistent rule following but there seems to be enough evidence on here to say that there is some flexibility and I believe I have even seen it on some uni sites - just wish I could remember where I did see it now.