What does each new "Leave to enter for six months" stamp mean?

Hi,

I want to make sure I understand what the stamp on my passport means, as I don't want to do the wrong thing or get "locked out" of the UK at some point.

When my wife and I first arrived in May, our passport was stamped with the date and a stamp that said "Leave to enter for six months."

I assume that meant that barring issues, we could stay up to six months from that date-- in other words, until November.

We then went back to the US for a week in June and when we came back, they stamped the date and a new "Leave to enter for six months."

And again, when we went to Belgium in August, they stamped the date (7 August 2005) and a third "Leave to enter for six months."

Does that mean that we can now stay until 7 February 2006?

I've read other postings where there seems to be conflicting information as to whether it's six months total in twelve months, or in a calendar year, or whether the clock is "reset" each time you get this particular stamp.

For what it's worth, we're on a year sabbatical, spending part of the time in England and part traveling. We're married, have provable sufficient funds for our entire stay and our own health coverage, proof that my wife is returning to work next April, etc. We want to follow the rules, but it's really hard to know what the rules are about staying here as a visitor.

Thanks,

Bill

When I was held in immigration, I was told that it was 6 months per twelve month period, starting from the first date you entered.  So you only have the right to remain in the UK 6 months from May, despite leaving for small periods of time here and there. 

You are good until February, i.e., the expiry date of the most recent stamp they issued you.  The 6 month business that gets bandied about the internet is a widely-misunderstood constructive rule and actually has to do with something else altogether.

Garry - Just curious if that is so, why do so many of us have similar stories about being held at immigration for overstaying our welcome in this country?  Is there a way to avoid being held up and questioned by immigration? 

Fair question and aptly put too.

To start, the 6 out of 12 months rule (also called the 'spent leave' rule) is a *constructive* rule.  As such, it is meant to be used by IO's as decision criteria for determing whether or not someone should be allowed to enter the UK.

The only time you see it referenced is as decision-making criteria for entry at port or as decision criteria for extension of leave to remain.  It is used to help the IO decide what to do when somebody appears at immigration control.  If the IO wants to use the rule to construct a rationale for refusing entry, he can do so because that's what the rule is for.  Also, if he decides that the rule does not apply or is otherwise not appropriate for that person's circumstances, he can ignore it because he doesn't have to invoke the rule if he doesn't want to.  That's why it's called a constructive rule.

Next.  The 6 out of 12 months rule, because it's a constructive rule to support decision-making, has nothing to do with overstaying.  Overstaying has to do with remaining in the UK beyond the expiry of one's visa.  And if your visa says you are good until February, then that's that.

It is often depicted on the internet that if a person is here for more than 6 months out of 12 that they are violating the law.  But in reality, they are violating the law only if they have breached the terms of their visa.  And in reality, there are gazillions of people whose cumulative time adds up to more than 6 months for legitimate reasons.  And can you imagine the chaos that would result if well-intentioned and law-abiding people were suddenly switched to overstayer status despite the fact that their passport showed otherwise?  It would be lunacy.

I hope that explains the difference.  On to your specific question...

Single women, travelling alone, with "deer in the headlights" eyes, under-financed, and without a credible purpose for being in the UK are basically asking for trouble.  And if the IO's radar goes ding-ding-ding, then he will pull the spent-leave rule out of the hat.  Why?  Because he can do that, and the only way you can argue with it is to have a really good reason for being in the UK.  While I hate to say it, there's also the legacy left by American women who came through immigration before you And essentially lied - and that legacy certainly doesn't help.  So if he decides to invoke the rule, you are stuffed. 

On the other hand, if he lets you in, then you are good to the expiry date.  And it doesn't matter if you simply took the ferry to Calais and came straight back and applied for entry.  If he stamps you in, you are good.  You can spin the roulette wheel like that as many times as you want.  If you loose, you'll need an entry clearance thereafter.

And to the difference between you and the OP, the OP is travelling on sabbatical with his wife so he's got a credible excuse for coming and going during his sabbatical, he's got financial resources, probably a thoughtful itinerary, and it would be quite astonishing if the IO invoked the spent-leave rule.

And your final question:  is there a way to avoid being held up?  I had posted a FAQ tip here in May or June about getting an entry clearance in the USA before you travel.  That nips immigration problems in the bud.  BAM gone.  And yeah, I have an array of tactics, various ports, various schedules and what-not but they can never be posted because it might be misinterpreted as advice on circumventing immigration control.  So the best all-around advice if you are worried about it is to get an entry clearance.

Thank you, Garry, for such a clear and complete answer. It's been hugely helpful.

Maybe you can answer a small point for us. The first time we entered the UK, they stamped our passport with a stamp that looked something like this:

newcomer link: http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en/home/0/preventing_illegal/uk_passport_stamps.Maincontent.0061.file.tmp/p45%20-%20stamp%203.jpg [nonactive]

The second time, the officer seemed more reluctant, and used a stamp that looked like this, where she wrote by hand her name or a code on the top line, and a date representing six months later on the bottom line:

newcomer link: http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en/home/0/preventing_illegal/uk_passport_stamps.Maincontent.0062.file.tmp/Code%203.jpg [nonactive]

The third time we entered, the officer questioned us as to why the second officer had used that stamp and it seemed to concern him. He asked if we'd been kept by the second officer for any length of time (which we hadn't). Then he gave us a stamp like the first officer used.

This seemed odd, since they've all asked pretty much the same questions and we've given them the same answers each time.

So this raises two questions for us:

What is special or concerning about the second stamp?

Will it continue to be a red flag, or not really, because the third officer returned to using the normal stamp?

Thanks,

Bill

Garry, I think I read somewhere they are changing the 6 months leave to enter to 3 months. for visitors, Is this correct? I could've sworn it should've already took place by now

Question regarding "Leave to enter for six months stamp": In the case of my two sons, ages 13 and 14, the stamp reads "for/until", with the word "until" striked out. Under this is written, "No work or recourse to public funds". Above these are a code combining letters and numbers, for example: "HPP 85 157".  Below this stamp is a second stamp of the immigration officer. In between these two stamps, the immigration officer wrote in pen the letter W inside of a circle.

The story is that my sons entered the UK to participate in a study program. Since we had not yet had complete information as to what kind of visa they should get, we agreed that they would enter the first time as US tourists, enabling them to stay up to six months, well more than the two or so months until the first break when they would return home for a visit.

They quite sincerely told the IO that they were going for a study program, and the IO urged them to get the proper study visa as soon as possible. He then gave each of them the above-described stamp.

Now my sons are under the impression that he explained to them that, although they have leave to remain in the UK up to six months, nonetheless, once they leave the UK, they will not be allowed to return without a proper student visa.

But from previous posters on this site, it looks as if they could re-enter with a problem. In the worst case scenario, they would be limited to the six-out-of-twelve rule, which is also fine because by that time I will be able to bring them home again and apply for a child student visa.

But perhaps there is something I do not know... is it possible that the stamp I described includes information that would limit their re-entry? Or is it possible or likely that information was entered in a database that would limit their re-entry, even if this information is not evident from the stamps?

I am sorry for being a bit lengthy, but I wanted the question to be as exact and comprehensive as possible.

They were let in as student visitors.  Not particularly shocking, really, as it happens all the time.  However, they must leave before the end of their six months, and they cannot return without entry clearance. 

Can you elaborate on the difference between a student visitor and a student visa?

I have always been unde the impression that a visitor should not be studying or working (even volunteering).

Tier 4 visas are only issued for courses that last longer than six months.  For anything shorter, non-visa nationals just declare themselves at the border and get a regular stamp.  I did this in 2008 for a four-week course.  I had paperwork showing that I was enrolled and had accomodation and everything was paid for.  They told me very sternly that I couldn't work, and that was that.  In the case of the OP's sons, it sounds like they were admitted as student visitors with the understanding that they would leave before the six months were up and apply for entry clearance before returning.  That's how I'd interpret it anyway.   

I had paperwork showing that I was enrolled and had accomodation and everything was paid for.  They told me very sternly that I couldn't work, and that was that. 

Historyenne - would you say the same for just a 6 mo. visitor visa? Just come over and deal with the questioning (all necessary documents/proof in hand).

I'm contemplating whether to apply for the visitor visa or not.

Historyenne - would you say the same for just a 6 mo. visitor visa? Just come over and deal with the questioning (all necessary documents/proof in hand).

I'm contemplating whether to apply for the visitor visa or not.

If you're just coming to the UK as a visitor and you have no prior bad immigration history/problems (refused UK visa or refused entry to the UK) or criminal convictions, then there's really no need to apply for a visitor visa. As long as you have all your documents/evidence that you are only a visitor, you have enough money for your trip, you can show you have responsibilities to return to in the US and that you have no intention of trying to stay in the UK illegally, you shouldn't need to get a visitor visa first.

Thank you, Historyenne, for cogent reply. Of course, my kids would need entry clearance, the question is, would they not have a good chance of getting this on re-entry without actually getting some kind of official visa.

More importantly, if we go back to Bill, the real original poster, it seems that he got the exact same stamp as my kids got, but nonetheless exited and re-entered without a problem. They simply re-stamped him with the same thing on his subsequent trips. Was that just good luck? Would it be too risky for me to try that with my kids (I would travel with them this time)? The point is, that now there is no break, whereas if I can send them back to the UK until March or so, then I can do the child study visa during that time, without them missing anything.

Thanks, Bernie

Bernie

Bernie Remember that Bill's experience was from 2006! Which is a LIFETIME in terms of immigration & rules changes. He also didn't get the 'exact same stamp' as your children. Their stamps are specifically altered for their situation and cross referenced by their landing cards (that's what the numbers & letters mean)

If you were told by an Immigration Officer that if your kids were to leave the UK they would need visas before coming back...then they need visas before they come back.

Bernie what is your immigration situation here? Why are your kids spending so much time in the UK? As the answers to these questions can shed light on what visas you children would need and would help us explain to you why they need them.