home or international fees?

hi ,
I tried posting this in the student lounge, but was advised to post here.

i would like to go back to uni ... and i am wondering if i have to pay student or home fees.

i came here on a visit visa june 2006- oct2006 then went  home and got fiancee visa for 2 weeks then came back to uk in oct 2006. i am now married and settled in the uk and i have ILR

my understanding is 3 years residency by the time one starts the course. so say i start this sept 2009 ,then  i should have been resisident here in sept 06. but i was on a visitor  visa back then. i only got the got the fiancee visa in OCT 2006.

so am i considered as international student ? am i one month short? :\\\'(

thanks guys!

You're fine. You'll be considered a home student. In my experience, the registrar will only be concerned with whether or not you have ILR, which you do. They only secondarily care about the three-year requirement, which by the way, you technically satisfy.

Enjoy your course!

REALLLY???  OMG! you just made my day !

Just keep in mind that the rules for paying home fees technically state that:

(a) you are presently settled in the UK (or are the dependent of someone who is)
 - You satisfy this on your own merits by having ILR, but you're also the spouse of a UK citizen.

(b) you have been resident in the UK for the preceeding three years (usually from the 1st of September) in a visa capacity that isn't primarily for the purpose of full-time study
 - A spouse visa and ILR satisfies this, because they clearly aren't student visas. And a tourist visa isn't either, is it? If you had been on a student visa back in September 2006, they could be sticklers about it, but you weren't. So really, I think you'll be fine.

Everything I've cited is from the UKCISA website if you'd like to see it there for yourself.

great news !
you made my day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(b) you have been resident in the UK for the preceeding three years (usually from the 1st of September) in a visa capacity that isn't primarily for the purpose of full-time study
 - A spouse visa and ILR satisfies this, because they clearly aren't student visas. And a tourist visa isn't either, is it? If you had been on a student visa back in September 2006, they could be sticklers about it, but you weren't. So really, I think you'll be fine.

Everything I've cited is from the UKCISA website if you'd like to see it there for yourself.

Hang on a sec, if time in the UK on a student visa cannot count towards ordinary residence, then neither can time on a visitor visa. According to several university websites I have just looked at, as well as the UKCISA site, you can only qualify for home fees if you have been ordinarily resident in the UK for 3 years on September 1st 2009 - ordinarily resident means habitually, normally and lawfully residing in the country from choice (from UKCISA)

From the UKCISA site (http://www.ukcosa.org.uk/student/info_sheets/tuition_fees_ewni.php and http://www.ukcosa.org.uk/student/info_sheets/tuition_fees_ewni.php#box3):

CATEGORY 1:
Those who are 'settled' in the UK and meet the main residence requirements

In order to qualify for ‘home’ fees under this category, you must meet all of the following criteria: (a) you must be 'settled' in the UK [see Box 1] on the 'first day of the first academic year of the course' [see Box 2],

AND

(b) you must be ‘ordinarily resident’ [see Box 3] in the UK on the ‘first day of the first academic year of the course’ [see Box 2],
AND

(c) you must also have been 'ordinarily resident' [see Box 3] in the UK and Islands (the Islands means the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) for the full three year period before the 'first day of the first academic year of the course'. For example, if your course begins in October 2008, you must have been ordinarily resident in the UK and Islands from 1 September 2005 to 31 August 2008,

AND

(d) the main purpose for your residence in the UK and islands must not have been to receive full-time education during any part of that three-year period.

Box 3:

Ordinarily resident

The relevant residence area is specified in each individual category, and is one of the following:

    * the UK and Islands
    * the EEA and Switzerland
    * the EEA, Switzerland and the overseas territories
    * the EEA, Switzerland, Turkey and the overseas territories

You are 'ordinarily resident' in the relevant area if you have habitually, normally and lawfully resided in that area from choice. Temporary absences from the residence area should be ignored.

As a visitor, you were not lawfully residing in the UK on September 1st 2006, so you were not ordinarily resident.

I take your point, but I'm not sure how hard they'll push that issue. My experience with several colleges of the University of London has been significant flexibility with the "ordinariily resident for three years" issue but great insistence on the "currently settled" bit. They likely won't go out of their way to investigate what precise visa she had on 1 Sept 2006, and even if they did, it's just the matter of one month.

This is a matter of the registrar's discretion, though. My experience is that they really care about the ILR issue. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

And to be honest, I'm not sure about this statement entirely:

As a visitor, you were not lawfully residing in the UK on September 1st 2006, so you were not ordinarily resident.

The definition of "lawfully residing" may be left open to interpretation, particularly considering that it was quickly followed up by a spousal visa. She was definitely "lawfully present". Whether or not, given the context, that may be extended to residing, I don't know. But again, from my own personal experience, I would anticipate a positive result.

yea I see what you guys mean...

I am going on an open day soon.

Would it be good if I go to the registrar's office and get them to tell me what category I fall under? I will get them to have a look at my passport .

 

But if someone was 'ordinarily resident' in the UK for the purposes of obtaining British Citizenship, as time as a visitor is, then an argument can be made that it is 'ordinarily resident' for purposes of getting home fees.

I think it will probably depend on the policy of the institution.

Vicky