bbennet

Hi,

Sorry for the long post.

I applied for a UK ancestry visa -- and it has been approved. As I stated on the visa application, my goal is not to move permanently to the UK, but to come and go, both with the right to abode, and to work. I own my own small corp, and work remotely -- so, I am fully employed where ever I reside. For example, I won't be selling my home in Canada, and I intend to buy a home in the UK.

Primarily, I want to escape our winters here, see Europe, and get to know my ancestral homeland, the UK.

Information on the visa application website is sparse, and in as such I did not realise that a BRP would be issued, or that a temporary/30 day vignette would be affixed to my visa. I had thought that my visa was required to attach a permanent page in my visa... like with many other countries.

So while I placed July as my 'arrive in the UK' date, the language in my application form made it clear I'd be coming any time between this summer, and months from now. In as such, I'm unable to 'get away' to travel to the UK -- and pick up my BRP at the post office.

The acceptance letter is a bit obscure, with language such as:

"You must collect your BRP from the following collection point before your vignette expires or within to days of arriving in the UK, whichever is the later."

On the surface, it seems I have no problem. As a Canuck, there should be little reason to stop my at the border when I arrive. My first visit to the UK won't be to settle, but to scope out places to live, see where I might want to buy my second home, have meetings with contracting (IT/computer consulting) firms, and so forth. This means I won't be entering to stay, and I'll have proof of that too (return ticket, etc).

So -- do I really need another vignette? If so, why? I should be able to enter freely. The acceptance letter states I can collect my BRP at any time really, as long as it is 10 days after I arrive (once vignette expires).

Am I reading all this correctly, or is the letter just poorly worded?

Any input appreciated.

Thanks

BritInParis

A UK Ancestry visa doesn't give you right of abode in the UK; only the ability to live and work in the UK for five years. If you meet the residence requirements at the end of those five years you can apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain. Alternatively you can also apply to renew your UK Ancestry visa.

I think you have misread the information. You are given a 30 day window to enter the UK to activate your UK Ancestry visa based on the date of arrival you stated on your application form. If you miss that window then you will need to either apply for a Transfer of Conditions to give you a new 30 day vignette or start the whole process again from scratch. Once you have entered the UK during this 30 day window it is then mandatory for you to collect your BRP within 10 days of arrival. Once you have your BRP then you can come and go as as you please.

You can't let your vignette expire, arrive as a visitor and then expect to be able to collect your UK Ancestry visa BRP.

bbennet

Hmm, thanks.

So my most likely options are, go now as my initial exploratory trip with the goals I mentioned, or pay ~ 289 to transfer / get a new vignette when the time comes.

My other concern is -- I've read many reports that often the BRP is not available on time. That some report to the post office, and it is simply not there.

I'd be... disappointed, to discover that I arrived as planned, but the BRP won't be available for an indeterminate amount of time. Any way to verify that it's ready for pickup? I suspect no, which is quite unfortunate, but you seem to be quite knowledgeable, so I pose the question!

BritInParis

I'm not aware of that being a problem. It should be there waiting for you.

spouse of scouse

Agree. I've never heard of a BRP not being at the nominated post office.

bbennet

I saw quite a few pleas for help on forums and such, when looking into my above scenario. Perhaps it is very rare, and those with issues are just an extremely tiny minority.

Certainly even the most efficient process may have an occasional glitch, or perhaps even some of these people had authorization pulled for some reason? Either way, I'm glad to hear that it seems extremely rare.

Thanks all.

bbennet

FYI -- all went well, BRP collected, 'exploratory' trip went quite well.

A big upside, yet also a big downside, the weather was apparently beyond "good". While it made my 2+ week trip much more enjoyable, it also removed my ability to see what the UK is "really like", in terms of long term settlement. :P

But all in all, very nice. That refers to the people, the countryside, yet most certainly NOT the roads.

As I told a friend -- driving in the UK is like listening to a German singing poetry. Off key. While hung over.

EDIT for more info?

I've never seen so many split road / national highways at a complete standstill -- in the middle of nowhere, for absolutely no reason what so ever. At 2pm. No rush hour, no rain, nothing to slow people down, except 'lack of road' I'm surmising.

Truly a thorn in what would otherwise be a great place to live.

christmasoompa

Of course the UK will have much more traffic than you're used to (unless you're from the GTA perhaps), it's a more crowded country. I can't imagine that was much of a surprise surely?

If you want traffic free UK, then you do need to go to the middle of nowhere but that may not suit, depending on what you're after. I'm not sure what a 'national highway' or 'split road' is? But there are plenty of quieter areas if you stay away from the main cities, south east, and most crowded parts.

Whereabouts were you staying?

bbennet

My description of 'the middle of nowhere' wasn't referring to ring roads around London, or near Manchester or what not. I drove over 2000 miles in 2 weeks, and spent all of 1 day in large cities like London or Manchester.

Try on the way to Glasgow. Or part way to Manchester from London. Or a large majority of any type of road, any where, any place. Miles from a city, rural areas, it matters not.

This isn't about population, but about there not being enough money spent on roads. And with the gas tax as it is, at least 4x that of the gas tax in Canada, there's plenty to go around.

The UK isn't the only place to 'not keep up', we have problems in Canada too. It's just so much apparently worse, that's all.

Even the traffic in the GTA is better than the traffic in (often) far flung places in the UK.

Every country is going to have its chink -- it's just unfortunate that I want to live in the country, which means more driving. And therefore, this particular issue -- affects me directly, and my plans.

christmasoompa

Those are far from the 'middle of nowhere'. Those are major commuter routes and the busiest.

It doesn't pay just for roads though. And it will be in decline with the uptake of electric vehicles, although I'm guessing that at some point the UK government will need to introduce car tax for electric cars too.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I've never known traffic like on the 401, even the M25 often looks heavenly in comparison!

The one big advantage the UK has over Canada is the public transport network. If driving is going to be a huge issue for you where you will be living, then you could forget a car and use that instead maybe?

If the busy roads were the worst thing you saw of the UK, then that's pretty good tbh. Unfortunately, like high taxes, overcrowdedness, and the benefits culture, they are just a downside of living here. But there are a heck of a lot of upsides to make up for them.

Good luck with the move.

BritInParis

Motorways and major dual carriageways are always likely to be busy, save in the middle of the night. The population density of the UK is an order of magnitude greater than that of Canada. There are 704 people per square mile in the UK as a whole and 1,098 per square mile in England. In Canada it's 10. The UK is twice as densely populated as France and England is more densely populated than any other European country bar Malta and a few microstates.

That's not to say there aren't quieter parts of the country and areas where you can get far from the madding crowd but it's not nearly on the same scale as North America.

bbennet

There's some.. unusual comparisons in this thread.

Let's start with population density. There's little value in comparing country by country. Canada has massive, huge swaths of virtually unlivable land, filled with nothing else than either bog or frozen bog. Most of Canada's population is within 100km of the border, with our network of rural roads spreading well out beyond that. Which if you think about it? Means MORE cost than UK roads.

Why?

Well, some rural roads travel 100s or *thousands* of kms between cities of an appreciable size, all having to deal with the horrors of winter through summer seasonal changes, including UK unknowns such as frost greaves. Sure, roads are expensive to initially create -- but the REAL cost is year after year maintenance, repairs, not just the road surfaces but cleaning trees/debris after storms, ensuring storm drains don't plug and wash out the road.

With rural roads, the cost isn't traffic damage to the road -- it's environmental damage to the road.

Like this: , all that damage because proper maintenance wasn't completed.. and the storm drain plugged.. and the water ate around it and eventually washed the road out in a heavy spring thaw... yet maintenance costs. A veritable army of maintenance on roads, all across the country through all those rural regions.

Even dirt roads aren't "cheap", just "cheaper", for they still need to be maintained -- just in different ways. My house has a grader go by weekly, to re-level the road after traffic. And..

Then there's the constant snow plowing, costs of salt and dirt.. and if you think purchasing and delivering hundreds to thousands of tonnes of salt to each road a year is cheap... no way.

Anyhow, my point is, low population density doesn't always mean cheap -- because now you have to have roads to communities 100s of miles apart.. with few people IN those communities.

But of course, those are the areas that are "rural", but not "uninhabited".

In terms of "the rest" as in "urban", Southern Ontario has a very high population density... quite comparable to areas I was driving through.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Ontario
Population (2016)
• Total 12,775,222
• Density 91.3/km2 (236/sq mi)
• Total 139,931 km2 (52,860 sq mi)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_England

Area 130,279 km2 (50,301 sq mi)
Density 415/km2 ... <-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...United_Kingdom

Now bear in mind, this is one tiny part of Canada... the most densely population, but at least it's a comparison on one axis.. area versus like area..

I'm sure most "UK minded" here will say "Ah-ha! See! More people, hence more people on the roads!" -- yet, the equation is simple. You have more traffic, and therefore you build more roads. Road users are more than paying for those roads out of their fuel tax, do the math in detail (it takes weeks by the way, trust me, I've done some of it). Make sure to realise that each time a car drives on that road? More money for that road.

But, that all said.. keep in mind that one tiny tiny part of Canada can be equated to the 'highly dense' England region of the UK. Meanwhile, we have all that rural area left, where there are indeed few people:

Population and dwelling counts, for Canada and census subdivisions (municipalities) with 5,000-plus population, 2011 and 2006 censuses
(edit: note the full title above.. this is a census of areas with 5000 plus population! I assure you, that means a LOT of tiny tiny places are left out! A *lot*)

What do you do, with places where there are 1, or 10, per square km? Often a dwelling has more than one person in it, so that gives you an idea of the distance roads have to travel.

What do you do, with all those roads to all those people? Busy roads pay for themselves with gas tax. Rural roads? They don't, and they still require extensive maintenance or they get destroyed by nature.

So.. I leave this long post with that simple premise.

Busy roads have vast riches pouring into them via gas tax. Rural roads have comparatively almost nothing.

BritInParis

So the most densely populated part of Canada is nearly five times less densely populated than the whole of England and you wondered why the roads here are busier. It has nothing to do with cost; it's just we'd rather not concrete over what's left of the countryside. The flipside is that most things you want are near to hand. You don't have to jump in your car and drive for any appreciable length of time unless you are visiting a particular part of the country and if negotiating the M1 during peak hours fills you with dread then you're not alone. Depending on you will be based then intercity trains will usually get you where you want to go with two to three hours.

bbennet

Guys, please.

I live in a rural area. My roads have traffic, but are not congested. By the logic employed here, any area more densely populated, should have more congestion.

That is the argument, yes? That because "there are more people", therefore "the roads are congested"? If so, then virtually every road in Canada near any city with a population of 10000 should be congested, cities should be logjams, and the UK should have people stranded for decades, living in tent cities due to being stranded.

More people does not mean more congestion. Only a failure to upkeep the road system does.

As for concreting over the countryside, a prime example are roads between the London and Manchester, for example -- or roads headed North. These too were congested, but often in a manner where the addition of even one more lane per direction would make a significant difference. And realistically, widening roads can be done in a number of ways, such as continuous 3 lane roads (allowing for alternate passing lanes). A big, HUGE improvement would be turnoffs instead of roundabouts to keep road traffic speed up (which requires very little in additional paving), in key areas.

Roundabouts are fine in places, but they are very sub-optimal in others. I personally witnessed multiple areas, at least half a dozen come to immediate mind, where traffic was often fine -- then backed up for miles and miles, all due to a roundabout instead of freeway/highway turnoffs.

So some congestion issues are certainly due to a tight belt, and not due to saving the countryside.

And really -- since we're on the topic, it doesn't end there. I tried to take the chunnel (it shall always be chunnel to me ;P ), but after a 60 minute wait, I was told it would be MORE of a wait to even drive aboard. I decided to exit. Yes, I know that's not 100% UK.. but the impression stands. And when in London -- all of 1pm in London, the underground leaving was so packed that it was shoulder to shoulder. 1pm. On a Monday.

It seems to me that transportation issues are a problem in the UK. As you can probably tell... I'm... verbose. I spoke to a great many people, and many UK residents echoed what I'm saying here.

If prompted, I can go over many issues Canada has with similar sorts of problems. Ways that we've reduced/neglected funding for certain societal concerns, and now we're paying the price. This isn't a 'bash the UK' session, it's a 'that's the problem I saw' session. I certainly wasn't accosted with knives, I didn't see people living in cardboard boxes on the street, people were polite and almost always willing to stop and chat.

So if you think I'm knocking the UK, I'm not. As I said, the people are exceptionally polite, the countryside is great. In fact, I was completely awestruck with The Peaks area. While Canada has a raw, untouched and primal beauty -- the UK certainly has a refined and cultured landscape. Very becoming.

But I have to lay it cards where they are placed, and stick with them.

Maybe it was the "german signing poetry" comment. OK -- that's a bit over the top I suppose. One should never have that label applied to them, so I retract that and simply say -- the roads need improvement. :P

christmasoompa